NSF 16-546: Management and Operation of the National Geophysical Observatory for Geoscience (NGEO)

Program Solicitation NSF 16-546

National Science Foundation Directorate for Geosciences      Division of Earth Sciences

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

     August 01, 2016

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

     December 30, 2016

Important Information And Revision Notes

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title:

Synopsis of Program:

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• Gregory J. Anderson, telephone: (703) 292-4693, email: greander@nsf.gov
• Russell C. Kelz, telephone: (703) 292-4747, email: rkelz@nsf.gov

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

• 47.050 --- Geosciences

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement or Master Cooperative Agreement with Cooperative Support Agreement(s)

Estimated Number of Awards: 1 to 5

Anticipated Funding Amount:$387,000,000

This is the projected total amount of NSF funding for the 10-year duration of any NGEO award(s), starting 1 October 2018, subject to the availability of funding. NSF anticipates any award(s) would be for an initial duration of five years, with the possibility of renewal for a further five years contingent on the availability of funds and the successful outcome of comprehensive external reviews of Awardee(s) performance and facility success during the third or fourth year of the period of initial support.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

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

There are no restrictions or limits.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
• Full Proposals:
  • Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
  • Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements:

  Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

  Not Applicable

• Other Budgetary Limitations:

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

C. Due Dates

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

       August 01, 2016

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

       December 30, 2016

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:

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

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

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

Reporting Requirements:

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

I. Introduction

II. Program Description

III. Award Information

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

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

There are no restrictions or limits.

Additional Eligibility Info:

Consortia may include international partnerships, but NSF funds may be awarded only to U.S.-based organizations, and hence NSF expects the U.S. organization to be the lead organization.

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Letters of Intent (required):

Each proposing organization must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) through FastLane; full proposals may be submitted only by organizations that have submitted a LOI by the LOI due date.

LOIs will be used by NSF to ensure that the appropriate expertise is available for participation in the review and selection process, to foresee potential conflicts of interest, to identify any potential gaps in the capabilities being proposed, and to anticipate special award conditions that may be necessary to accommodate the proposed organizational and governance structure. The LOI is a statement of a proposer's preliminary plans; the senior personnel, collaborating or partnering organizations, and proposed plans may change between submission of the Letter of Intent and submission of the Full Proposal.

Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions

Complete submission of a Letter of Intent (LOI) requires two separate components that must each be submitted prior to the LOI due date.

FastLane LOI Component

Submit the following LOI information via FastLane:

• Project Title
• Synopsis (a brief abstract of maximum 2,500 characters of plain text)
• Point of Contact for NSF Inquiries
• Project PI Information
• Participating Organizations

Submission of this component via FastLane will produce a FastLane LOI ID that must be included in the PDF LOI Component described below.

PDF LOI Component

Via an email to the Cognizant Program Officers named herein, submit a document of no more than 5 pages in length in Portable Document Format (PDF) that addresses the following:

• A description of the proposer's strategic vision and proposed management concept for the planned NGEO activities;
• A description of the envisioned organizational and governance structure to support the planned NGEO activities, including the identification of all collaborating and partnering institutions and their roles;
• A list that identifies full names and affiliations of proposed Key Personnel, including all PIs, co-PIs, and senior personnel; and
• A brief synopsis of the proposer's organizational expertise in operating large scientific facilities.

The PDF document should include the FastLane LOI ID in a running header and must be consistent with NSF Grant Proposal Guide formatting guidelines (NSF GPG Section II.B).

Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions

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

• Submission by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) is required when submitting Letters of Intent;
• Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is not allowed;
• Other Participating Organizations are allowed; and
• Subrecipients may participate in more than one letter of intent.

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

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


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

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

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.5 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

See Chapter II.C.2 of the GPG 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 GPG instructions.

The Full Proposal shall conform to the guidelines specified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide or the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, except where detailed below.

Proposers are reminded to review procedures under "Proprietary or Privileged Information" in Section I.D.3 of the GPG and to mark only such information, including patentable ideas, trade secrets, privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, disclosure of which might harm the proposer, with the appropriate legend such as, "The following is (proprietary or confidential) information that (name of proposing organization) requests not be released to persons outside the Government, except for purposes of review and evaluation." Please also see the section entitled "Privacy Act and Public Burden Statements" below.

The following information is required for the Full Proposal:

1. PI/Co-I Information: This should follow the standard GPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide guidelines.


2. Cover Sheet: A cover sheet must be submitted and electronically signed by an Authorized Organizational Representative for all full proposals.


3. Project Summary: This section should provide a summary of the key points of the proposal and should be understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader. This section must follow the standard GPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide guidelines. Proposals that do not include an overview and separate statements on intellectual merit and broader impacts within the Project Summary will not be accepted by FastLane or will be returned without review.


4. Project Description (up to 75 pages): This section should describe the proposed activities and provide the scientific justification for the work proposed. The scientific justification must be clear and tied directly to applicable community-vetted guiding documents, including Unlocking the Secrets of the North American Continent: An EarthScope Science Plan for 2010-2020 (Williams et al., 2010); New Research Opportunities in the Earth Sciences (NRC, 2012); and Future Geophysical Facilities Required to Address Grand Challenges in the Earth Sciences (Aster et al., 2015). This section of the proposal must demonstrate that input from the broad Earth science community served by NGEO has been solicited and incorporated. Please note that all information relevant to determining the quality of the proposed work must be included as part of the Project Description, unless otherwise directed in this solicitation.


5. References Cited: This section should follow the standard GPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide guidelines.


6. Biographical Sketches: A resume, limited to 2 pages, must be provided for the PI, each co-PI, all Key Personnel, and any other senior personnel as required in GPG Section II.C.2.f.


7. Budget: See the instructions in Section B, below.


8. Current and Pending Support: This section should follow the standard GPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide guidelines.


9. Supplementary Documentation: Except as specified in this item or in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (see GPG Section II.C.2.j), special information relevant to determining the quality of the proposed work must be included either as part of the Project Description or as part of the budget justification.
   1. Documentation of collaborative arrangements of significance to the proposal: Proposers should document with formal letters of collaboration any collaborative arrangements of significance in performing the proposed work. Letters of support are not permitted under this solicitation, and proposals containing such letters may be returned without review. Please see the NSF Grant Proposal Guide Section II.C.2.d(iv) for further details.
   
   
   2. Work Breakdown Structure Dictionary (text-searchable PDF up to 20 pages in length):Document that provides detailed information about each element in the WBS, such as a brief definition of the scope of work, deliverables, bases for budget and schedule estimates, assessment measures, and milestones.
   
   
   3. Transition Plan:Proposing organizations, other than the incumbent responsible for an element of GAGE or SAGE that forms an element of a proposal from that incumbent, may be funded for an additional transition period of 12 months preceding the transfer of operating authority. If new Awardee(s) are selected to manage, operate, and maintain a particular NGEO capacity, the incumbent for that capacity will cooperate with the successor to the extent necessary to facilitate uninterrupted support for NGEO during the transition period, and will provide transfer of legal rights to relevant property and equipment. NSF will support appropriate transition costs incurred by successor Awardee(s) if different from the current Awardees.

      Organizations other than the incumbent for a given capacity must provide, as a Supplementary Document not to exceed 15 pages, a detailed transition plan and budget for a transition period of up to 12 months preceding the new award. The transition plan must include at a minimum:

      1. A proposed duration and schedule for the transition period;
      2. Estimated resource needs for the transition period;
      3. Plans for recruiting, orientation, and training;
      4. Plans for changes to staffing, facilities, or operational modes;
      5. A plan to acquire office infrastructure and manage the transfer of assets, inventory, commitments, plans, and documents;
      6. Identification of assumptions that underlie the transition plan; and
      7. A detailed budget for the transition period, presented in accordance with instructions given in Section V.B.


10. Single Copy Documents: Information for the items below should be entered via the Single Copy Documents section in FastLane as "Additional Single Copy Documents."
    1. Information required by NSF for determining conflicts of interest. NSF will use the documents below to determine conflicts of interest in the review process. The documents should be entered in the Single Copy Document section of FastLane "List of Personnel, Collaborators and Affiliates."
       1. Project Personnel: Provide the full names, affiliations, educational background, and specific role for each person for whom support is sought, including all PIs, co-PIs, named senior personnel, and/or contractors (including subawardees).
       
       
       2. Collaborators and Other Affiliations Information: For all PIs, co-PIs, named senior personnel, and/or contractors (including for subawardees), provide the names of all persons, participants and affiliates with potential conflicts of interest, with format as specified in Section II.C.1.e of the NSF GPG. For each person, be sure to include information for all collaborators and other affiliations as specified in Section II.C.1.e of the NSF GPG, as well as for all known individuals who would act as external advisory committee members for NGEO; and all subcontractors who would receive funds through the award.
    
    
    2. Copy of Letter of Intent. Proposers must submit a single PDF document that combines both the FastLane LOI component and the PDF LOI component described in Section V.A. Proposals lacking this combined document may be returned without review.


11. The following section is not required for the Full Proposal:

    Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources (all relevant information must be provided in the Project Description and Appendices).

    Proposers should insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation." Doing so will enable FastLane to accept your proposal.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

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

Budget Preparation Instructions:

Full proposals should include a budget on the budget form in FastLane or the R&R Budget Form in Grants.gov for each year of the ten-year period proposed (first five year period of an initial award plus another five years pending a successful performance review). The first year budget should total no more than $38,700,000 and only if the full set of desired capabilities described herein is proposed. FastLane and Grants.gov will automatically provide a cumulative budget.

The proposal should provide all staffing and budgeting information needed to describe how the organization would carry out the proposed activities. Requested budget amounts for each year of the proposal should reflect the level considered necessary to perform the NSF-funded activities described in the proposal. Proposers should be cognizant of budget constraints implied by the estimated funding levels provided under Sections II and III.

A budget justification tied directly to the integrated WBS and WBS Dictionary for the proposal shall be submitted with the budgets for each year, and shall be in sufficient detail to show how the proposer reached the amounts specified in the budget. NSF anticipates performing a cost analysis of successful proposal budget(s) in accordance with NSF's Large Facilities Manual (LFM; NSF 15-089, dated June 2015 or subsequent revision). A draft version of LFM Section 4.2 (Cost Estimating and Analysis) will be provided for proposal preparation. Proposing organizations are required to follow the instructions in the Grant Proposal Guide, effective January 25, 2016 (Budget and Budget Justification, https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf16001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2g).

Enter the anticipated total level of subrecipient support on line G5, Subawards, of the FastLane budget or line F5 of the R&R Budget Form in Grants.gov. Proposals require the inclusion of separate budgets for subrecipient agreements that exceed $250,000 per year, with a budget justification and detailed explanation of the proposing organization's cost analysis of that budget, for a maximum of 3 pages each. Examples include budgeted months and salaries for personnel, quotations to support budgeted equipment, itemized listing of material and supplies with support quotations, statements of risk assessments and monitoring plans for each subrecipient, cost price analysis to support that the proposed subaward amounts are reasonable and copies of the subrecipient responsibility determinations, including adequacy of accounting system and financial capability. For subawards valued at less than $250,000 year, include the costs in the aggregate on the subaward line in the budget.

Proposing organizations other than the incumbent for a particular NGEO facility capability must also provide a separate budget for a transition period of up to 12 months preceding the new award. This information must be provided as part of the required Transition Plan (see Section V.A, item 8.c). The budget must be presented in the same style with all applicable budget line items as for the budget for each year of the proposal. If new Awardee(s) are selected to manage and operate a given NGEO facility capability, the incumbent will cooperate with the successor to the extent necessary to facilitate uninterrupted support for NGEO during the transition period and will provide transfer of legal rights to relevant property and equipment. NSF will support appropriate transition costs incurred by a successor awardee if different from the current awardee. The transition budget should not include non-renewal costs of the incumbent. If a new operator is selected, the incumbent may submit to NSF costs related to the cooperative agreement non-renewal, and these costs will be considered separately.

Organizations that have not previously received NSF awards should review the NSF Prospective New Awardee Guide (https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf0529/guide05_29.pdf) and current NSF Large Facilities Manual (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf15089) for additional guidance in preparing their budget submission.

C. Due Dates

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

       August 01, 2016

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

       December 30, 2016

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

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

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

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

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

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

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as 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 Investing in Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation's Future: NSF Strategic Plan for 2014-2018. 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. (GPG 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 GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

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

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

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

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

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

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

For Full Proposals, reviewers will be asked to judge the following:

1. How well demonstrated is the need for the proposed facility capabilities?
   1. How well is the scientific justification for the proposed facility capabilities tied to the appropriate community-developed guiding documents?
   2. How clearly has the proposer demonstrated that input from the broad Earth science community served by EAR has been solicited and incorporated?
   3. How appropriate and essential for the intended Earth science research are the proposed facility capabilities?
   4. How much will research projects supported by GEO benefit from the proposed facility capabilities?
2. How well conceived is the integrated maintenance and operation plan and budget for the proposed activities?
   1. Are there well-defined vision, mission, goals, and objectives for maintenance and operations of the proposed activities to serve the Earth science community?
   2. Are the planned activities justified and adequate for management and operations of the proposed facility capabilities?
   3. Is the rationale used to develop task descriptions, milestones, and resource requirements adequately explained in the proposal?
   4. Is there a coherent and effective leadership, management, and organizational structure? Are the duties of each staff position clear and is the need for each position justified? Are the salaries and time commitments appropriate and well justified?
   5. Does the proposer have the ability to provide access to facility capabilities intended to serve a national or regional research community?
   6. Does the project have sufficient financial and audit controls?
   7. Are there adequate descriptions of the hardware and software to be maintained and operated, and the means by which this would be accomplished?
   8. What is the quality of the plan for risk management for the proposed activities? Does the risk management plan adequately address budget and other project risks?
   9. What is the quality of the plan for annual critical self-assessment?
3. Proposed Budget
   1. Is the proposed budget appropriate, clear, detailed, and well justified?
   2. Does the proposal include specific activities associated with the work to be performed and the activity-based resource descriptions?
   3. Are FTE levels appropriate? Are all labor costs used in the budget appropriately and correctly identified? Are the activities and unit costs associated with the project scope clearly identified and defined in the budget?
   4. Are project resources effectively allocated to all personnel tasks, activities, and equipment and material and supply costs?
   5. Is the cost of the proposed capabilities reasonable and adequate when compared with previous history and current market prices?
   6. Is the budget consistent with the schedule?
   7. Are the schedule and budget adequate for maintaining the facility?
   8. Are the assumptions that have been used to develop the budget clearly identified and defined? Have all uncertainties in the project scope and budget been identified?
4. Transition Plan (if any)
   Reviewers will evaluate the Transition Plan to assess the proposing organization's ability to assume full responsibility for the management and operation of NGEO upon completion of the transition period, without degradation of facility capabilities.

In addition, NSF will assess the organization's budgetary, financial, and business information, as part of the merit review outlined in this solicitation, and pre-award business reviews.  NSF will evaluate and/or assess the following:

• Total proposed costs, for reasonableness and potential impact on funding available for science and related activities;
• The impact of the proposed total cost relative to those of other proposals;
• Annual audited financial statements (e.g., Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Statement, and Annual Reports) for the three most recent fiscal years, and/or other documentation to clearly explain the organization's current financial strength and resource capabilities; and
• The adequacy of the organization's internal accounting and operational controls (including human resources, property control and procurement systems); its potential for attracting qualified employees, and the adequacy of its financial resources for managing NGEO.

The business evaluation will be used to help inform the Program Officer's recommendation for award.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by

Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, Site Visit Review, or Reverse Site Review.

Proposals will be reviewed with a combination of ad hoc reviews, panel review meetings, and reverse site visits. The panel will include experts in business practices and management of scientific organizations. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using the criteria specified above. Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage each proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation. NSF staff's evaluation of the financial and business systems will be used to help inform the Program Officer's review.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation. The National Science Board must also approve any award(s) from proposals submitted in response to this solicitation, and that may require additional processing time.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

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

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

VII. Award Administration Information

A. Notification of the Award

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

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

Special Award Conditions:

The award associated with this solicitation will not be a standard grant or contract, but rather either a cooperative agreement or a master cooperative agreement with individual cooperative support agreements issued under the terms and conditions of the overall agreement. Any special requirements not stated herein will be negotiated at time of award.

TBD - Programmatic Terms and Conditions:

The cooperative agreement(s) awarded as a result of this competition will be administered by the NSF Division of Earth Sciences. The following are some of the measures NSF envisions using to conduct oversight for the cooperative agreement or cooperative support agreements:

• Review of annual reports, program plans and performance metrics;
• Site visits at least annually, and as necessary;
• Annual estimated cost reviews;
• Review of NGEO activities and management performance in the third or fourth year of the initial award period; and
• After the mid-term review, NSF may either invite the Awardee(s) to submit renewal proposal(s) for an additional five-year period of support, or issue a new solicitation, or transition the facility activities in some other fashion.

TBD - Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions:

Costs to be reimbursed in accordance with 2 CFR 220 -- Cost Principles for Educational Institutions, 2 CFR 230 -- Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations, or Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 31, as applicable.

The awardee will be required to submit to an NSF Business Systems Review (see NSF 13-100, Business Systems Review Guide v.4.0) at least once during the award period.

Standard cooperative agreement terms and conditions, including supplements for managers of FFRDCs, are available at: https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/co-op_conditions.jsp. Specific terms and conditions will be negotiated at time of 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 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 Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

NSF will require the successful Awardee(s) to provide planning documents, such as annual program plans and long-range plans, along with necessary reports. Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), NSF is required to report on the Federal Performance Goals for Facilities. Any and all facilities with an annual budget exceeding a specific threshold must report on their operations activities; and any and all construction/upgrade projects that exceed a total project cost of a specific threshold must report on their construction/upgrade activities. Therefore, Awardee(s) will be required, upon request of the cognizant NSF program officer, to submit annual reports related to the GPRA performance goals. This may include the collection and submission of specific data related to the NSF GPRA requirements.

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:

• Gregory J. Anderson, telephone: (703) 292-4693, email: greander@nsf.gov
• Russell C. Kelz, telephone: (703) 292-4747, email: rkelz@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

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

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

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

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.

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 provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov Location: 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 For General Information (NSF Information Center): (703) 292-5111 TDD (for the hearing-impaired): (703) 292-5090 To Order Publications or Forms:   Send an e-mail to: nsfpubs@nsf.gov or telephone: (703) 292-7827 To Locate NSF Employees: (703) 292-5111

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230