NSF 21-505: Mid-scale Research Infrastructure-1 (Mid-scale RI-1)
Program Solicitation
Document Information
Document History
- Posted: October 7, 2020
- Replaces: NSF 19-537
- Replaced by: NSF 22-637
Program Solicitation NSF 21-505
Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time): January 07, 2021 Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time): April 23, 2021 By Invitation Only Important Information And Revision NotesPreliminary proposals must be submitted by an Authorized Organizational Representative by the due date indicated. Full proposal submission is by invitation only. Please consult NSF's Major Facilities Guide (MFG) for definitions of terms used in this solicitation, such as the Project Execution Plan. As noted in the section specific to Mid-scale Research Infrastructure (Section 5), the Project Execution Plans should be scaled for the complexity of the project, and may not require all of the elements described elsewhere in the MFG. Any preliminary proposal or invited full proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is appropriate for the submission deadline date. The Mid-scale RI-1 Program seeks broad representation of PIs and institutions in its award portfolio, including a geographically diverse set of institutions (including those in EPSCoR jurisdictions) and PIs who are women, early-career researchers, members of underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities. For the latter group, Mid-scale RI-1 encourages PIs to consider Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) requests as part of an Mid-scale RI-1 proposal submission (see the current PAPPG). The total amount requested, including the base Mid-scale RI-1 budget and any FASED request must not exceed the Mid-scale RI-1 program’s budget limit. Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 20-1), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after June 1, 2020. Summary Of Program RequirementsGeneral InformationProgram Title:
Synopsis of Program:
Cognizant Program Officer(s): Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
Award InformationAnticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement Estimated Number of Awards: 3 to 10 The number of Mid-scale RI-1 awards is dependent on the availability of funds and the quality of proposals received. The number of awards within each Mid-scale RI-1 category (Implementation and Design) will depend on the program funding level, the numbers, costs and quality of proposals received by NSF in each category, and the award mechanisms NSF utilizes when making awards. Mid-scale RI-1 is expected to be a biennial competition. The frequency is dependent on the availability of appropriated funds. Proposals will typically be funded for up to five years, commensurate with the scope of the project. "Implementation" projects may have a total project cost ranging from $6 million up to but not including $20 million. Only "Design" projects may request less than $6 million, with a minimum request of $600,000 and a maximum request up to but not including $20 million. Anticipated Funding Amount: $70,000,000 to $80,000,000 Estimated FY 2021/22 program budget is subject to the availability of funds. Eligibility InformationWho May Submit Proposals:
Who May Serve as PI:
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 1
Proposal Preparation and Submission InstructionsA. Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. Budgetary Information
C. Due Dates
Proposal Review Information CriteriaMerit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Award Administration InformationAward Conditions: 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. I. IntroductionThe scientific research community is increasingly focused on the need for infrastructure that is too complex and costly for a single organization to procure, utilize and maintain. With its Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program and Major Facilities projects, NSF is able to support instrumentation/infrastructure projects across the Foundation at the lower end ($100,000 to $4 million[1]) and higher end (greater than $100 million) of the spectrum of infrastructure costs. The Mid-scale Research Infrastructure program is intended to provide NSF with an agile, Foundation-wide process to fund experimental research capabilities in the mid-scale ($6 million-$100 million) range. The National Science Board report responding to Congress, “Bridging the Gap: Building a Sustained Approach to Mid-scale Research Infrastructure and Cyberinfrastructure at NSF[2]", highlights that: “The research community has identified mid-scale research infrastructure as a key enabler of scientific advances on shorter timescales than required for the larger projects funded within the MREFC (Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction) account. Mid-scale research infrastructure can also provide the foundations for new innovative large infrastructure, and, in the process, train early-career researchers in the development, design, construction, and effective use of cutting-edge infrastructure. Likewise, cyberinfrastructure (CI) is key to solving the challenges of collecting, processing, and distributing the big data so prevalent in today’s science and engineering endeavors. Infrastructure investments at the required mid-level can also help maintain the United States’ standing among global partners and competitors.” The NSB Report recommends that NSF should sustain a mid-scale program, noting that many mid- scale projects have potential for high scientific impact and have a level of community support as indicated by National Academies reports, directorate strategic plans and/or other advisory groups. A separate mid-scale activity, Mid-scale RI-2, spans the $20-100 million range. This solicitation for Mid-scale RI-1 activities covers the lower end of the mid-scale gap. [1] $5.7 million with the inclusion of Congressionally mandated cost sharing. [2] https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2018/NSB-2018-40-Midscale-Research-Infrastructure-Report-to-Congress-Oct2018.pdf II. Program DescriptionThe Mid-scale RI program (RI-1 and RI-2) provides a flexible, yet robust, competitive opportunity to support research infrastructure of intermediate scales above the MRI and below the Major Facilities thresholds, respectively. This Mid-scale RI-1 solicitation calls for mid-scale projects in the lower portion of that range, from $6 million up to but not including $20 million in total project costs for implementation projects and $600,000 up to but not including $20 million for design projects. This funding range will support a variety of activities to implement or design visionary and unique high-priority projects with broad impact, as identified by research communities in the United States, unlike projects with a campus-centric focus. The goal of Mid-scale RI-1 is the fulfillment of a community-defined need that enables current and next-generation U.S. researchers to be competitive in a global research environment. Solving the most pressing scientific and societal problems of the day – such as those called out in National Academies reports and decadal surveys or identified through research community planning and prioritizing exercises or other national priorities – using new technologies, techniques, and concepts is encouraged in this competition. As such, Mid-scale RI-1 should focus on innovative, potentially transformative projects. The scientific justification should demonstrate how the proposed infrastructure provides priority research capabilities relative to what is generally available to the general U.S. research community. Investigators whose preliminary proposals are for capabilities similar to those currently available to the U.S. research community are unlikely to be invited to submit full proposals. With the exception of design awards, infrastructure acquired or developed with support from the Mid-scale RI-1 Program is expected to be operational by the end of the award period to enable the research for which the infrastructure was proposed. All proposals should show the project's value and benefit to the U.S. science community. Examples of benefit include, but are not limited to, new and unique research capability, broad access to research infrastructure, dedicated community observing time on the infrastructure, access to unique data products and software, and cooperation and sharing of technology with other projects. Proposals for infrastructure that are part of a larger project must clearly state the impact of the proposed infrastructure on the project and the benefit to the U.S. research communities that NSF supports. Mid-scale projects are ideal opportunities to broaden diversity in STEM fields and train the next generation of leaders in science, engineering and technology and creators of cutting-edge new capabilities. As such, student training and involvement of a diverse workforce in mid-scale infrastructure development, and/or associated data management are expected. To maximize the impact of Mid-scale RI-1 investments, proposals must focus on innovative, potentially transformative research infrastructure that enables a strong component of diversity and student training in state-of-the-art infrastructure development and/or use. Strong project management and robust cost estimation will be emphasized in the Mid-scale RI-1 proposal review, particularly for more costly or complex projects. Proposers are strongly encouraged to account for all foreseeable costs in the project budget, including adequate plans for risk mitigation. Prior to making a funding decision, NSF may be required to comply with applicable federal environmental laws and regulations such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For example, these statutes require NSF to consider the potential impacts of activities associated with proposals under consideration for NSF funding on a broad range of environmental resources (NEPA), significant historic properties (NHPA), and endangered and/or threatened species (ESA). To assist NSF in determining which environmental statutes may apply and what level of environmental review may be appropriate, preliminary proposals (and if applicable full proposals) should indicate whether activities are anticipated to impact the natural or cultural environment, especially those involving renovation, construction, or major fixed equipment installation. In order to support NSF’s federal environmental review and compliance obligations, additional information may be requested from the PI. Projects with an international component may be submitted to the Mid-scale RI-1 program in accordance with the program’s eligibility requirements. International projects typically involve partnering a U.S. project with one or more international collaborators in a specific institution or organization. Successful international projects include (1) true intellectual collaboration with a foreign partner and (2) benefits that are realized from the expertise, specialized skills, capabilities, phenomena, or other resources that the foreign collaborator or research environment provides. Examples of projects that may be supported by Mid-scale RI-1 include, but are not limited to, infrastructure that supports high-priority research experiments or campaigns, major cyberinfrastructure that addresses community and national-scale computational and data-intensive science and engineering research, major shared community infrastructure and resources as may be required to enable community-scale research and upgrades and/or major new infrastructure for existing facilities. All Mid-scale RI-1 proposals should describe the types of research for which the infrastructure will be used, and the benefit to the U.S. research communities that NSF supports. Proposals for infrastructure that are part of a larger project must clearly state the impact of the proposed infrastructure on the project, and whether and how any specific part(s) of the infrastructure would be identified with NSF. However, the specific research projects for which the infrastructure will be used need not be funded by NSF or the Federal government. The Mid-scale RI-1 program will not support projects that include the following:
Proposals seeking support are subject to return without review if noncompliance with the above guidance is established prior to review, or declination if noncompliance is established as a result of merit review. To organize the diverse range of projects expected across the research areas supported by NSF, with a wide range of project types and costs, the Mid-scale RI-1 program is divided into the following categories.
Implementation projects may a) enable well-defined, limited-term research experiments with broad community buy-in and shared data resources and/or b) shared-use, mid-scale infrastructure for broad community use. M1:IP provides for acquiring, assembling, constructing and/or commissioning mid-scale infrastructure e.g., at labs, facilities or in the field, but does not support the construction or operations of labs/facilities or the science or operations undertaken with the infrastructure. Operations and maintenance costs are discussed below. Design projects are intended to prepare for the implementation of future mid-scale range projects. Only M1:DP projects may ask for less than $6 million. The minimum M1:DP budget request is $600,000, with the upper request for M1:DP being the maximum allowable Mid-scale RI-1 request up to but not including $20 million as needed to prepare for a future mid-scale range implementation project. Mid-scale RI-1 will not support early phase Research and Development that addresses technological issues that are appropriate for funding through regular research programs or conceptual planning. Successful award of a Mid-scale RI-1 design project does not imply NSF commitment to future implementation of that project, and awarded M1:DP projects that submit to future NSF competitions for implementation will be competing against all other proposals in any competition. The distribution of awards between the design and implementation categories will depend on the numbers and quality of the proposals received. The Mid-scale RI-1 Program does not provide operating or maintenance funds for projects it supports through this solicitation. However, both preliminary and full proposals must describe viable plans for continuing operations and maintenance of any awarded infrastructure. (See below.) Mid-scale RI is expected to serve a wide community and lead to readily available public access to data. Mid-scale RI-1 investments are expected to fill gaps in the Nation’s infrastructure and demonstrate high potential to significantly advance the Nation’s research capabilities. Proposals will typically be funded for up to five years, commensurate with the scope of the project. III. Award InformationAwards may be in the form of a standard grant, a continuing grant or a cooperative agreement, depending on the complexity of the project and the extent of government involvement. NSF reserves the right to undertake pre-award (reverse-)site visits and/or cost, schedule, and management reviews as part of the review of a proposed project. Post-award (reverse-)site visits, monthly, quarterly and annual reports may be part of NSF's post-award monitoring process. The minimum proposal budget for M1:IP projects is $6 million, with the maximum proposal budget for the full award duration being up to but not including $20 million. Only M1:DP projects may request less than $6 million, with a minimum request of $600,000 and a maximum request up to but not including $20 million as needed to prepare for a future mid-scale class implementation project. Earliest expected start date is October 01, 2021. Estimated FY 2021/22 program budget is subject to the availability of funds. IV. Eligibility InformationWho May Submit Proposals:
Who May Serve as PI:
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 1
V. Proposal Preparation And Submission InstructionsA. Proposal Preparation InstructionsPreliminary Proposals (required): Preliminary proposals are required and must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system, even if full proposals will be submitted via Grants.gov. Special instructions for submitting to this Big Idea solicitation FastLane Users: Proposers are reminded to identify the program solicitation number (located on the first page of this document) in the first block on the NSF Cover Sheet. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Please note that even though proposals must be submitted to the Office of Integrative Activities, once received the proposals will be managed by a cross-disciplinary team of NSF Program Directors. Separately submitted collaborative proposals will not be accepted. Funding to partner institutions must be through subawards. Preliminary Proposal Contents The preliminary proposal should consist of the following elements: Cover Sheet: For planning purposes October 01, 2021 should be shown as the start date. Be sure to check the block indicating that a preliminary proposal is being submitted and identify the program solicitation number in the program announcement/solicitation block. When submitted, proposals will first reside in the Office of Integrative Activities which coordinates the Mid-scale RI-1 program in partnership with NSF Directorates. The project title must be concise and include the primary Mid-scale RI-1 purpose of the proposal, e.g., "Mid-scale RI-1 (M1:IP): TITLE" or "Mid-scale RI-1 (M1:DP): TITLE". Consortium projects must also be identified in the title. NSF proposals identify only a single PI and up to four co-PIs with those titles. Other major participants may be designated as “senior personnel.” Please see the NSF PAPPG for definitions of Senior Personnel. Project Summary (1-page maximum): Please follow guidance in the NSF PAPPG. The first line of the Project Summary should list the most relevant Directorate(s)/Division(s) for review of the proposal. NSF reserves the right to assign proposals to Directorate/(s)Division(s) that are deemed to be the most appropriate for review. PI selection of a Directorate/(s)Division(s) for review is advisory to NSF. Table of Contents: A Table of Contents is automatically generated for the proposal by the FastLane system. The proposer cannot edit this form. Project Description (10-pages maximum):
References Cited: Please follow guidance in the NSF PAPPG for instructions. Biographical Sketches (2 pages each): Biographical Sketches are required for the PI, all co-PIs, and any additional senior personnel at all participating organizations. See the PAPPG for details. Budget and Budget Justification: Budgets for Preliminary proposals, including budgets for any subawards, may be cost estimates but must be justified with a Basis of Estimates (BoE) included. Copies of vendor quotations, however, should not be included in preliminary proposals. If the budget will include contingency, please refer to Section 5 of the MFG for guidance. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources: In order for NSF, and its reviewers, to assess the scope of a proposed project, all organizational resources necessary for, and available to a project, must be described in this section of the proposal. Proposers should describe only those resources that are directly applicable. The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable financial information. Proposers should include a description of the internal and external resources (both physical and personnel) that are expected to be available to the project. Such information must be provided in this section, in lieu of other parts of the proposal (e.g., Budget Justification, Project Description). Supplementary Documents (to be entered in the Supplementary Documents section of FastLane): 1) A list of the major team members, their affiliations, and their role in the project; 2) A list of Partner Organizations to be funded via subawards, and the role of each in the project; and 3) An outline of the Project Execution Plan (PEP). The PEP documents the foundation for how the project will be managed by the Recipient. (See the MFG.) Greater PEP detail will be required in invited full proposals should that occur. The latest template for a Mid-scale RI PEP will be posted at https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/lfo/lfo_documents.jsp. No other items or appendices should be included. Information pertaining to "Results from Prior NSF Support", "Current and Pending Support", "Data Management Plan", and "Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan" is not required for preliminary proposals and should not be included. Preliminary proposals containing items other than those required above are subject to return without review. Information to be submitted to NSF via the FastLane Single Copy Documents Section Required: Collaborators & Other Affiliations (COA) information specified in the PAPPG should be submitted using the instructions and spreadsheet template found at https://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/coa.jsp. Optional: Proprietary or privileged information (if applicable). Any available, relevant environmental reports and/or documentation (e.g., permits, authorizations, etc.), if applicable, should be submitted in the Single Copy Document section. Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.
See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions. Special instructions for submitting to this Big Idea solicitation FastLane Users: Proposers are reminded to identify the program solicitation number (located on the first page of this document) in the first block on the NSF Cover Sheet. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Please note that even though proposals must be submitted to the Office of Integrative Activities, once received the proposals will be managed by a cross-disciplinary team of NSF Program Directors. Grants.gov Users: The program solicitation number will be pre-populated by Grants.gov on the NSF Grant Application Cover Page, however you will need to locate the Division Code, Program Code, Division Name, and Program Name for the specific solicitation you are applying to by visiting https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/pgmannounce.jsp. As stated previously, even though proposals must be submitted to the Office of Integrative Activities, once received the proposals will be managed by a cross-disciplinary team of NSF Program Directors. Full proposals should only be submitted if invited by NSF. Separately submitted collaborative proposals will not be accepted. Funding to partner institutions must be through subawards. When preparing a full proposal for this competition, proposers are advised to review the Program Description and the Proposal Review Information found in this solicitation. If invited by NSF, full proposals should provide much more detail than the preliminary proposal and include a detailed project execution plan (PEP) that clearly describes the management of the project within the “Construction Project Definition” section of the PEP. Project management descriptions should be clear and concise. Every effort should be made to update information that was provided in the preliminary proposal and to fully address issues raised in the preliminary proposal review. The cost and scope of the project is likely to be refined in the full proposal. The following instructions supplement the guidance in the PAPPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. Additional instructions for full proposals may be provided in letters of invitation to submit full proposals. Cover Sheet: For planning purposes October 01, 2021 should be shown as the start date. Identify the program solicitation number in the program announcement/solicitation block. When submitted, proposals will first reside in the Office of Integrative Activities which coordinates the Mid-scale RI-1 program in partnership with NSF Directorates. The project title must be concise and include the primary Mid-scale RI-1 purpose of the proposal, e.g., "Mid-scale RI-1 (M1:IP): TITLE" for implementation projects or "Mid-scale RI-1 (M1:DP): TITLE" for design projects. Consortium projects must also be identified in the title. Project Summary (1-page maximum): See instructions for Preliminary Proposals. The first line of the Project Summary should list the most relevant Directorate(s)/Division(s) for review of the proposal. NSF reserves the right to assign proposals to Directorate(s)/Division(s) that are deemed to be the most appropriate for review. PI selection of a Directorate(s)/Division(s) for review is advisory to NSF. Table of Contents: See instructions for Preliminary Proposals. Project Description (page limit is 20 pages unless otherwise specified in the invitation letter): This section must include components listed below.
References Cited: Please follow guidance in the NSF PAPPG for instructions. Biographical Sketches (2 pages each): Biographical Sketches are required for the PI, all co-PIs and additional senior personnel at all participating organizations. See the PAPPG for details. Budget and Budget Justification, including budgets for any subawards: Mid‐scale full proposals should include costs and budget estimates for all stages of the project lifecycle including development and design, construction/acquisition, operations, and divestment, even though not all stages may be rigorously defined at the current stage of the project history. For example, actual costs should be stated for prior investments made during a design stage when submitting a Mid-scale RI-1 proposal for implementation. For those invited to submit full proposals, additional details may be specified in the letter of invitation. Budgets should be supported by the four characteristics of a high‐quality estimate: 1) well‐documented; 2) comprehensive; 3) accurate; and 4) credible (see the MFG). Project schedules should be developed following the best program management practices. If the budget will include contingency, please refer to Section 5 of the MFG for guidance. Vendor quotations for major components must be included as supplementary documents for full proposals only. Full proposals must also include a fully developed estimate of any needs for ongoing operations and maintenance requested outside of the Mid-scale RI program, specifying if that support will be requested from NSF or other sources. Only if requested in the full-proposal invitation should an itemized budget for NSF-supported operations and maintenance outside of the Mid-scale RI-1 budget be included as a supplementary document. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources: See instructions for Preliminary Proposals. Current and Pending Support: See the NSF PAPPG for instructions. Supplementary Documents:
The latest template for a Mid-scale RI PEP will be posted at https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/lfo/lfo_documents.jsp. Please consult NSF's Major Facilities Guide, Section 5, for information specific to Mid-scale Project Execution Plans. The PEP should be scaled for the complexity of the project, and may not require all of the elements described elsewhere in the MFG. To: NSF Mid-scale RI-1 Coordinators From: Org Date: Subject: Statement of Collaboration By signing below I acknowledge that I am listed as a collaborator on this Mid-scale RI proposal, entitled " (proposal title) ," with (PI name) as the Principal Investigator. I agree to undertake the tasks assigned to me, as described in the proposal, and I commit to provide or make available the resources therein designated to me. Signed: Print Name: The proposal body itself should describe the nature and need for a collaboration and/or describe the major users and their need for the infrastructure. Statements of collaboration by individuals beyond that specified above, including letters of support/endorsement, are not allowed. Each statement must be signed by the designated collaborator/user. PI requests to collaborators for these statements should be made well in advance of the proposal submission deadline since, if they are to be included, they must be included at the time of the proposal submission. If a proposed effort involves a collaboration at an organizational level as opposed to an individual(s), e.g., a private sector partner, an entire organization, or a large formalized collaboration (e.g., through a memorandum of understanding or other legal document), a one- page-maximum letter confirming their participation may be included. In particular, proposals involving large formalized collaborations are encouraged to have the collaboration utilize this letter to document the role, importance and priority of the requested infrastructure in the overall efforts being undertaken by the collaboration; Data Management Plan: See the NSF PAPPG for instructions; and Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, as appropriate: See the NSF PAPPG for instructions. No other items or appendices are to be included unless expressly allowed in the invitation to submit a full proposal. Full proposals containing items other than those allowed above will be returned without review. Information to be submitted to NSF as Single Copy Documents Required: Collaborators & Other Affiliations (COA). See Preliminary Proposal instructions and the NSF PAPPG. Optional: List of suggested reviewers or reviewers not to include (with a brief explanation or justification for why the reviewer should be excluded); Proprietary or privileged information (if applicable). Information on potential environmental impacts, if any (including surveys that have been completed, environmental reviews and analyses, permits obtained, etc.) and decommissioning and divestment plans should be submitted in the Single Copy Documents section. B. Budgetary InformationCost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. Other Budgetary Limitations: Implementation projects may have a total project cost ranging from $6 million up to but not including $20 million. Only Design projects may request less than $6 million, with a minimum request of $600,000 and a maximum request up to but not including $20 million. Budget Preparation Instructions: A breakdown of project components and their expected costs must be included in the Budget Justification. For preliminary proposals, the cost estimates may be preliminary estimates with the basis of estimates included. In the event of an award, NSF may require the Awardee to develop budget estimates and associated risk estimates that are "bottom up" assessments that consider every element of the entire project. See the NSF's Major Facilities Guide for guidance. Vendor quotes for major components must be included as supplementary documents for full proposals only. C. Due Dates
D. FastLane/Research.gov/Grants.gov RequirementsFor Proposals Submitted Via FastLane or Research.gov:
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Proposers that submitted via FastLane or Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application. VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review ProceduresProposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1. A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/. Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Building the Future: Investing in Discovery and Innovation - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 – 2022. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning. NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports. A. Merit Review Principles and CriteriaThe National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects. 1. Merit Review Principles These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent. 2. Merit Review Criteria All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:
The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education. Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate. Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria The focus of the preliminary proposal review will be on the significance of the proposed science, the importance and benefit of the proposed infrastructure to the wider community and the qualifications of the team to undertake the project. In addition to these elements, the full proposal review will focus on the project management, the process used to derive the cost estimates, and the broader impacts of the project including the training of students and broadening participation of underrepresented groups in all aspects of the project.
B. Review and Selection ProcessProposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, Internal NSF Review, or / and additional technical review, including site visits, for complex projects. Preliminary proposals will be reviewed by NSF internally or using external reviews as appropriate to the Directorate's requirements in which the preliminary proposals are considered. The outcome will be an invite/do-not-invite decision for full proposals. Full proposals, to be submitted by invitation only, will be reviewed by external reviewers. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation. After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation. After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk. Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding. VII. Award Administration InformationA. Notification of the AwardNotification 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 ConditionsAn NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail. *These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Special Award Conditions: Grantees will be required to include appropriate acknowledgment of NSF support under the Mid-scale Research Infrastructure Big Idea by signage on any infrastructure supported by an award: “This infrastructure is supported by the National Science Foundation Mid-scale Research Infrastructure Big Idea under Grant No. (Grantee enters NSF grant number.)”, and in any publication (including World Wide Web pages) for any material based on or developed under the project, in the following terms: “This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Mid-scale Research Infrastructure Big Idea under Grant No. (Grantee enters NSF grant number.)”. Grantees also will be required to orally acknowledge NSF support using the language specified above during all news media interviews, including popular media such as radio, television and news magazines. NSF may require in-person meetings, site visits, and periodic reviews depending on project scope. The award oversight will depend on project scope and complexity. C. Reporting RequirementsFor all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public. Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data. PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI. More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Additional reporting requirements, including possible reverse-/site visits to enable NSF oversight of the funded project may be required as part of the award terms and conditions. The level of oversight will be appropriate to the complexity of the award. VIII. Agency ContactsPlease note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact. General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
For questions related to the use of FastLane or Research.gov, contact:
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
IX. Other InformationThe NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website. Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov. About The National Science FoundationThe National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering." NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research. NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.E.6 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals. The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339. The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
Privacy Act And Public Burden StatementsThe information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne H. Plimpton |
