NSF 09-571: EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement Program: Track-2 (RII Track-2)

Program Solicitation NSF 09-571

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 08-595

 

National Science Foundation Office of Integrative Activities      Office of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

 

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

November 18, 2009

Revision Notes

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title: 

Synopsis of Program:

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

• Denise M. Barnes, Program Director, 1122S, telephone: (703) 292-5179, fax: (703) 292-9047, email: dbarnes@nsf.gov

• Arlene A. Garrison, Program Director, 1122S, telephone: (703) 292-8361, fax: 703-292-9047, email: aagarris@nsf.gov

• Maija M. Kukla, Program Director, 1122S, telephone: (703) 292-4940, fax: 703-292-9047, email: mkukla@nsf.gov

• Uma D. Venkateswaran, Program Director, 1122S, telephone: (703) 292-7732, fax: 703-292-9047, email: uvenkate@nsf.gov

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

• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources
• 47.078 --- Office of Polar Programs
• 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
• 47.080 --- Office of Cyberinfrastructure
• 47.081 --- Office of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award:  Cooperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards:    5  

Anticipated Funding Amount:   $10,000,000  in FY 2010 (pending quality of proposals and availability of funds)

Eligibility Information

Organization Limit: 

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• RII Track-2 proposals may only be submitted by consortia of eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions.  No jurisdiction may participate in more than one project (active or proposed). The EPSCoR governing committee of each jurisdiction of the consortium, acting on behalf of that jurisdiction, must submit a separately submitted collaborative proposal (see Chapter II, Section D.3.b of the NSF Grant Proposal Guide).

PI Limit: 

Principal Investigators/Project Directors of proposed EPSCoR projects must be affiliated with research universities, agencies, or organizations within the participant jurisdiction.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1

Eligible jurisdictions can participate in only one consortium, and can submit only one collaborative proposal.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 1

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

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not Applicable

• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable

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

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is not required under this solicitation.

• 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

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

  November 18, 2009

Proposal Review Information Criteria

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

Award Administration Information

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

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

Agency Contacts

Other Information

I. Introduction

II. Program Description

III. Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards: 5

Duration: Award duration of up to 3 years

Anticipated Funding Amount: Up to $10 million in FY 2010 (pending quality of proposals and availability of funds)

Limitation of Awards:

• RII Track-2 award amount not to exceed $2 million per year.

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

IV. Eligibility Information

Organization Limit: 

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• RII Track-2 proposals may only be submitted by consortia of eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions.  No jurisdiction may participate in more than one project (active or proposed). The EPSCoR governing committee of each jurisdiction of the consortium, acting on behalf of that jurisdiction, must submit a separately submitted collaborative proposal (see Chapter II, Section D.3.b of the NSF Grant Proposal Guide).

PI Limit: 

Principal Investigators/Project Directors of proposed EPSCoR projects must be affiliated with research universities, agencies, or organizations within the participant jurisdiction.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1

Eligible jurisdictions can participate in only one consortium, and can submit only one collaborative proposal.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 1

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

Additional Eligibility Info:

A newly eligible jurisdiction must submit a successful planning grant proposal before Research Infrastructure Improvement proposals (RII Track-1, RII Track-2, or RII C2) can be submitted. A "new" EPSCoR-eligible jurisdiction is defined as a State, US Territory, or US Commonwealth that (1) previously did not qualify via the established 0.75 percent criterion, but is declared eligible under the most recent publication of the annual NSF EPSCoR eligibility list (eligibility criteria) and (2) has demonstrated commitment to developing their research bases. Planning grant proposals can be submitted at any time following the most recent declaration of eligibility.  In order to compete for an RII Track-1, RII Track-2, and RII C2 award, the "new" jurisdiction must have received an EPSCoR planning grant.

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

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

The following instructions are specific to proposals submitted to the Research Infrastructure Improvement Program: Track-2 (RII Track-2) competition and supplement the NSF GPG:

• The jurisdiction's EPSCoR governing committee shall designate a fiscal agent/proposing organization for the project. Where possible, this should be the employing organization of the Project Director.
• The proposal section labeled Project Description may not exceed 25 pages, including text, as well as any graphic or illustrative materials. Page limitations also apply to specific subsections of the proposal. Proposals that exceed the page limitations or that do not contain all items described below will be returned without review.

Note: Proposals that use the maximum number of pages in each subsection of the Project Description will not be in compliance with the overall 25 page limitation.

The RII Track-2 proposal must include the following elements:

1. NSF Cover Sheet

2. Project Summary (2 pages maximum). Provide the vision and goals of the consortium; a summary of the research and education goals; and a description of the proposed innovative use of the cyberinfrastructure. In separate statements provide a succinct summary of the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the proposed project. Proposals that do not address the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the proposed project in separate statements will be returned without review.

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

4. Project Description (25 -pages maximum). The project description must include the shared collaborative vision of the consortium. It must also outline the compelling need for the consortium and how the proposed activities will address that need.  Details of the science and engineering research and research-based education that will be facilitated by the proposed cyberinfrastructure improvements and the appropriateness of that cyberinfrastructure to the proposed activities must be included. The project description must clearly document how the combined resources of the consortium will implement the proposed activities according to a well defined project timeline. It should describe the current status of the consortium's cyberinfrastructure for academic research and research-based education; the science and engineering project plans and goals; and how the cyberinfrastructure for which NSF support is being requested will enable successful pursuit of those goals. It should also describe how the proposed activities will engage the full diversity of the consortium's resources in the cyber-enabled science and engineering enterprise. The project description must detail the integrative management structure, roles and responsibilities of key personnel, and the cross-jurisdiction implementation plans.

Elements of the project description are:

4.1 Status (2 pages maximum).The current status of the consortium's cyberinfrastructure landscape, including opportunities, challenges, and needs.

4.2 Results from Relevant Prior Support (2 pages maximum). Results from relevant prior NSF support and a summary of the relevance of that support to the proposed project activities.

4.3 Active NSF RII Awards (2 pages maximum). Describe the scope, duration and funding level for each RII award of the jurisdicitions participating in the consortium that is active as of the date of the submission of this RII Track-2 proposal. Convey how the activities of those RII awards align and integrate with the proposed RII Track-2 activities.

4.4 Cyberinfrastructure-enabled Science and Engineering Program (15 pages maximum). A comprehensive description of project activities, including the research and research-based education components that promise to stimulate sustainable improvements in research capacity and competitiveness of the consortium; a comprehensive description of the cyberinfrastructure improvements across the consortium, and their associated specific goals, objectives, timelines, and milestones. This section must also show how the proposed project activities position the consortium for future cyberinfrastructure improvement activities that develop a diverse, cyber-enabled science and engineering workforce and how the consortium plans to enhance knowledge and skills to design and deploy as well as adopt and apply cyber-based tools and services. Finally, a compelling rationale for how use of the requested cyberinfrastructure will yield the desired objectives and outcomes, and a description of the intellectual partnership on which the project is based must be provided.

4.5 Diversity Plan (2 pages maximum). A description of the current state of diversity across the consortium's science and technology enterprise and clearly defined and adequately resourced plans for improvement must be provided. The plans must include specific goals, metrics, timelines, and milestones. This diversity includes all types, e.g., institutional, individual, disciplinary, geographic, etc.

4.6 Dissemination and Communication Plan (2 pages maximum). A clear and concise plan to communicate results, benefits, and processes of cyber-enabled research and research-based education participants and citizens must be included. The plan should detail how results will be disseminated and used to build scientific literacy and strengthen the educational and research capacity throughout and beyond the consortium.

4.7 Evaluation and Assessment Plan (3 pages maximum). A comprehensive evaluation and assessment plan, including goals, metrics, and milestones must be provided. The narrative must summarize how the metrics will be used to assess and evaluate demonstrable impacts and achievements of the cyber-enabled activities. The plan should detail annual metrics that indicate how the project is progressing. The plan should include review and evaluation of cyber-enabled activities by a group of diverse, independent, external experts during the award performance period.

4.8 Sustainability Plan (2 pages maximum). A plan for long-term sustainability of the proposed cyber-enabled activities, e.g. maintenance, liscensing, upgrades, etc., must be provided. The plan must clearly describe the strategy for sustaining the impacts and achievements of the project beyond the award performance period, specific tactical activities, their associated timeline and milestones.

4.9 Management and Coordination Plan (3 pages maximum). The management and coordination plan must provide a description of the roles of senior personnel and partnering organizations, a description of managerial arrangements, and an explanation of the advantages of the multi-jurisdictional efforts of the consortium.  The plan must also describe how the project will be managed across the consortium; identify specific coordination mechanisms that will enable cross-jurisdiction, and cross-discipline scientific integration; describe coordination plans as they apply to the adoption, integration, deployment, and use of the proposed cyberinfrastructure; and identify the budget line items that support these coordination mechanisms.

5. References Cited. References cited in the project description should be listed here.

6. Biographical Sketches. Biographical sketches must be included; biographical sketches for consortium participants must be submitted by each jurisdiction in the consortium. In choosing what to include, emphasize information that will be helpful for understanding the strengths, qualifications, and specific impact each individual brings to the project. In addition, the lead organization must submit a listing of all participants in aggregate for the project and for each participating jurisdiction, detailing the participant's role and institution.

7. Budget Pages and Budget Justification. Complete budget pages for each year of support (1-5). Each jurisdiction must submit budget and budget justifications, current and pending support, and facilities, equipment, and other resources for its organization.

8. Current and Pending Support.  List current and pending support for each faculty level participant.

9. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources

10. Supplementary Documentation

    1. List of Participants.  Provide a list of participating senior investigators (faculty level and equivalent) by name, organizational and departmental affiliation.

    2. List of Conflicts.  Provide a single, alphabetically ordered list of conflicts of interests, including collaborators, and former students and advisors for the PIs and key senior level participants.

    3. Letters of Commitment.  Include only official letters with specific commitments of resources from participating institutions or organizations anticipated to receive subawards, or from organizations that will provide resources for the project.  Scan your signed letters and upload them into the Supplementary Documents section of FastLane, but do not send originals.

Note: Do not submit additional letters of commitment which do not provide specific commitments of resources.

Proposers are reminded to identify the program solicitation number (NSF 09-571) in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:   Cost sharing is not required under this solicitation.

Other Budgetary Limitations:  

• Funding requests can be for durations of up to 3 years.  Annual budgets for NSF support cannot exceed $2 million.
• Budgets should include sufficient funding for participation in evaluation activities including reverse site visits.

C. Due Dates

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

  November 18, 2009

D. FastLane Requirements

Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this program solicitation through use of the NSF FastLane system. Detailed instructions regarding the technical aspects of proposal preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

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

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures   

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal.

A. NSF Merit Review Criteria

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

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

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

Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

Additional Review Criteria:

Reviewers for the RII Track-2 competition will also consider the following specific aspects of intellectual merit and broader impacts:

1. Strategic Fidelity and Impact - How well defined and justified are the vision and needs of the proposed consortium? How do the proposed activities contribute to advancement of the goals of the consortium? How do the proposed cyberinfrastructure development plans address the needs of the consortium? How do the proposed research infrastructure improvement plans and strategies utilize the strengths and opportunities identified in the proposal and how do the plans mitigate barriers? What meaningful impact on cyber-enabled research and research-based education capacity and capability within the consortium is expected as a result of this project?  How will the cyberinfrastructure enhance the consortium's capacity for discovery, innovation, and education in science and engineering? How will the project strengthen the consortium's ability to address scientific issues of relevance to the consortium and/or of national importance?  What is the level of integration among shared facilities and research partners and is it sufficient?  How does each proposed component contribute to an identifiable strategy for intensifying competitiveness in research and innovation? 

2. Value Added - How do the proposed activities add value at the institutional, jurisdictional and regional levels in research, education and innovation?  How will the magnitude of the additional value be measured?  How does the project advance the consortium's innovation and economic development, e.g., through greater emphasis on inventiveness, technology transfer, potential commercialization, and/or national R&D competitiveness?  How do the proposed activities promote organizational connections and linkages within and among jurisdictions, schools, private and public sector?  How well defined are the scope and depth of the proposed activities and how appropriate are the activities for achieving maximum project impacts? How will the proposed implementation plans result in increased diversity in the consortium's and/or nation's workforce (gender, race, ethnicity, institutional, geographical)?

3. Diversity - How will the diversity plans broaden participation (e.g., institutions, including minority serving institutions, women and underrepresented groups in STEM, persons with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged, rural, and/or first generation college students) in the research and education activities of the proposed project? How will the proposed activities achieve a significant and sustained impact in the targeted research and education populations within the consortium? What novel and effective ways are proposed to reach non-traditional populations and underrepresented groups in STEM?

4. Dissemination and Communication - How will the proposed internal communications enable the efficient sharing of data and information among and beyond the consoritum's partners?  How does the network take advantage of cyberinfrastructure and integrate with the existing cyberinfrastructure plans of the jurisdictions?  What is the coordinated process for the collection and dissemination of major project results to audiences that include, for example, the scientific community, the member jurisdictions, other EPSCoR jurisdictions and the general public?  What mechanisms are described as a communication pathway to the NSF EPSCoR Office and are they likely to be effective?

5. Evaluation and Assessment - How effective is the proposed plan likely to be in measuring the outputs and outcomes of the project? How clear and appropriate are the proposed metrics and criteria for measuring project accomplishments according to a well-defined schedule?  How will the defined processes result in reliably capturing metric-related data and reporting it in a timely manner? How will the evaluation process and results be used by project leadership for monitoring and management?  How do the formative and summative evaluation plans assess current status, major impacts, and future directions? How adequately resourced are the evaluation and assessment tasks? Are the independent, external evaluators appropriate?

6. Sustainability - How clear, reasonable and viable are the plans for sustainability?  How will the proposed activities foster and sustain the activities and/or innovation in the long-term following EPSCoR support? How will each of the project's partners contribute to sustainability and how will the partnership evolve to ensure future progress in research, research-based education and innovation?

7. Management and Coordination - How well is the management structure described and how appropriate is that structure for effective management, coordination, and oversight of the consortium activities? How do the Project Directors and the management team demonstrate the vision, experience and capacity to manage a complex, multi-faceted cyber-enabled research, education, and knowledge transfer enterprise?  Are the memberships and roles of the jurisdictions' EPSCoR governing committees and external advisors identified, and is their involvement in the project apparent, logical, and free of conflicts of interest?  Are plans for technical assistance appropriate and are the anticipated providers of such assistance appropriately qualified and free of conflicts of interest?

B. Review and Selection Process

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

Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later.  The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer.  In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

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

VII. Award Administration Information

A. Notification of the Award

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

B. Award Conditions

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

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

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

Special Award Conditions: 

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require more frequent project reports). Within 90 days after expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for that PI. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports.  Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project participants (individual and organizational) publications; and, other specific products and contributions.  PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system.  Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete.

VIII. Agency Contacts

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

• Denise M. Barnes, Program Director, 1122S, telephone: (703) 292-5179, fax: (703) 292-9047, email: dbarnes@nsf.gov

• Arlene A. Garrison, Program Director, 1122S, telephone: (703) 292-8361, fax: 703-292-9047, email: aagarris@nsf.gov

• Maija M. Kukla, Program Director, 1122S, telephone: (703) 292-4940, fax: 703-292-9047, email: mkukla@nsf.gov

• Uma D. Venkateswaran, Program Director, 1122S, telephone: (703) 292-7732, fax: 703-292-9047, email: uvenkate@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

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

IX. Other Information

The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, National Science Foundation Update is a free e-mail subscription service designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail when new publications are issued that match their identified interests. Users can subscribe to this service by clicking the "Get NSF Updates by Email" link on the NSF web site.

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

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

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

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

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

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

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

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

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

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230