NSF 21-569: Scholarships in STEM Network (S-STEM-Net)
Program Solicitation
Program Solicitation NSF 21-569
Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time): April 16, 2021 Letter of Intent for Resource and Evaluation Center Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time): June 16, 2021 Full Proposal Deadline for both S-STEM Resource and Evaluation Center and S-STEM Research Hub proposals Important Information And Revision NotesAny proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 20-1), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after June 1, 2020. Summary Of Program RequirementsGeneral InformationProgram Title:
Synopsis of Program:
Cognizant Program Officer(s): Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
Award InformationAnticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Cooperative Agreement Estimated Number of Awards: 1 to 11 S-STEM-REC – one award, as a cooperative agreement. S-STEM-Hub – up to 10 awards, as standard grants. Anticipated Funding Amount: $45,000,000 Eligibility InformationWho May Submit Proposals:
Who May Serve as PI:
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
Proposal Preparation and Submission InstructionsA. Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. Budgetary Information
C. Due Dates
Proposal Review Information CriteriaMerit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Award Administration InformationAward Conditions: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Reporting Requirements: Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. I. IntroductionThrough this solicitation, NSF seeks to foster a community for S-STEM stakeholders and further develop the infrastructure needed to generate and disseminate new knowledge, successful practices and effective design principles arising from NSF S-STEM projects nationwide. To support collaboration within the S-STEM network, NSF will fund two types of investments: An S-STEM Resource and Evaluation Center (S-STEM-REC) and several S-STEM Research Hubs (S-STEM-Hub). The S-STEM Network (S-STEM-Net) will collaborate to create synergies and sustain a robust national ecosystem consisting of multi-sector partners supporting domestic low-income STEM students in achieving their career goals, while also ensuring access, inclusion, and adaptability to changing learning needs. This network will also synthesize current achievements and investigate evolving barriers to the success of this student population. It will also disseminate the context and circumstances by which interventions and practices that support graduation of domestic low-income students pursuing careers in STEM are successful. The target audience for this dissemination effort is the community of higher education institutions, faculty, scholars, researchers and evaluators, local and regional organizations, industry, and other nonprofit, federal, state, and local agencies concerned with the success of domestic low-income STEM students in the United States. II. Program DescriptionS-STEM-Net investments: This solicitation supports two types of investments with distinct objectives and goals.
Letters of intent will:
Requirements for both the S-STEM REC and S-STEM Hubs: Lead Organization: The lead organization must demonstrate significant experience with the S-STEM program, support of domestic low-income students in STEM, and/or management of services similar to those proposed. Evaluation: Proposals must include formative and summative assessments of the quality and success of the S-STEM-REC or S-STEM-Hub activities as appropriate. This evaluation must be conducted by an independent experienced evaluator who is external to the project and to the institution. Letters of Collaboration: All institutional collaborations must be ratified by a corresponding letter of collaboration signed by an administrator (dean or above) following the PAPPG requirements for these letters, confirming that the institution is aware of the proposed work and willing to support the project in full if awarded. Participation in S-STEM PI meeting: PI and Co-PIs should plan to participate in the S-STEM PI meeting that occurs every other year in Washington D.C. Budgets should include travel for the leadership team for the 3-day event in years 1, 3 and 5 of the execution. a. S-STEM Resource and Evaluation Center (S-STEM-REC) Number, Funding Level and Goal Up to 1 (one) center will be funded for up to $3,000,000 annually for a total of $15,000,000 over five years. S-STEM seeks proposals that will result in a single award for the development and implementation of an S-STEM Resource and Evaluation Center to serve the S-STEM Network. The primary goal of the S-STEM-REC is to serve as a resource center for S-STEM stakeholders, strengthening the impact of S-STEM investments by disseminating successful practices and the outcomes and achievements of S-STEM program investments as a whole. It will do so by:
S-STEM stakeholders may be institutions with S-STEM awards, their administrators, faculty, and officers engaged in S-STEM activities (financial aid officers; student services; residential services, etc.), professional societies, S-STEM scholars, government (local, state and/or federal) agencies, nonprofit organizations, private sector businesses, and other scientists, as appropriate. The S-STEM-REC should plan a mechanism to collect annual feedback on how well it is meeting S-STEM stakeholders’ needs and expectations. Critical S-STEM-REC Activities: Two types of activities are required: 1. Building, Supporting, and Expanding the S-STEM Community. S-STEM-REC will create a network of S-STEM awardees and prospective awardees and other stakeholders through meetings, communications, and other methods that encourage sharing of knowledge, deliverables, practices, and findings across projects. The network will be fostered by nurturing S-STEM communities (including PIs, faculty, evaluators, financial aid officers, administrators, and undergraduate and graduate students) and encourage broader participation by all types of institutions. S-STEM-REC proposals must describe plans to:
2. Synthesizing evidence of S-STEM Program outcomes and impacts. The S-STEM-REC is required to conduct activities that will assist the S-STEM program and NSF’s Division of Undergraduate Education in synthesizing evidence of outcomes and impacts across the entire S-STEM portfolio, which currently includes over 500 projects in the United States and territories. Proposals must:
At a minimum, the S-STEM Impact Report should meaningfully discuss national outcomes at 4 levels: career outcomes of S-STEM scholars, institutional outcomes, faculty outcomes, and impact of the research findings generated by S-STEM PIs. The S-STEM Impact Report should be of high quality in terms of content and graphical design. S-STEM-REC proposers should not assume that the data collected regularly from S-STEM awardees through the S-STEM Monitoring System, S-STEM.ORG, will be available to them. Instead, proposers should plan to develop independent data collection strategies aligned with their proposed framework to synthesize outcomes and impact of the program. Surveys, interviews, case studies, and other means for data collection should anticipate missing data and the treatment of non-responses. Proposers should also consider methodological approaches to synthesize information about how interventions implemented in different educational contexts to diverse populations in terms of student demographics, disciplines of study, degrees, types of institutions, etc. achieve different or comparable results. Longitudinal case studies that report on the career pathways of S-STEM scholars are welcome.
b. S-STEM Research Hubs Number, Funding Level and Goal NSF seeks collaborative proposals that will result in awards supporting up to ten S-STEM Research Hubs (S-STEM-Hub). S-STEM Research Hub awards will be made for a maximum of $3 million dollars over a maximum period of performance of 5 years. The primary goal of each S-STEM Research Hub is to support and carry out high-quality, innovative research on supporting and promoting the success of domestic low-income undergraduate and graduate STEM students. Proposals without a clear emphasis on research into domestic low-income STEM student degree completion and career success should be submitted to other funding opportunities in EHR. For example, the online NSF INCLUDES National Network amplifies efforts to realize equity and inclusion in STEM for all underrepresented groups, which includes but is not limited to low-income students. Collaborations between S-STEM-Hubs and other NSF-funded initiatives, such as NSF INCLUDES, could be appropriate as long as proposers focus their research activities on the success of domestic low-income students, regardless of other demographic factors. S-STEM Research Hubs are primarily formed to organize groups of researchers to conduct and disseminate rigorous qualitative and quantitative research on topics related to the S-STEM program and low-income student success. Each Research Hub should have a central focus that intersects a clear group of current and prospective S-STEM institutions. For example, a Research Hub might be organized around research on specific interventions (e.g., math Summer bridge programs) or desirable outcomes (e.g., development of STEM identity) for S-STEM scholars. Other thematic topics that Research Hubs might focus on include research on issues affecting a specific discipline or academic context (e.g., low-income undergraduates in computer science; access to graduate programs for domestic low-income students in strategic disciplines such as quantum science, robotics, or AI; first-generation S-STEM scholars at two-year colleges; low-income veterans pursuing STEM careers). Any other common interests that exist among active S-STEM projects might also be appropriate for development of a Research Hub, including geographic regions with common cultural and other socio-economic factors affecting scholars (e.g., S-STEM Research Hub of the Midwest) or type of institution (e.g., S-STEM Hub for Rural-serving Institutions). Research Hubs coordinate groups of researchers engaged with S-STEM projects to explore methodologies, data streams, and opportunities for new research directions. Consequently, the Research Hub must conduct activities that will foster new and innovative collaborative research activities involving researchers from beyond the host institution. It is anticipated that the activities in which the hub engages may evolve. Thus, it is important that a Research Hub leverages its interinstitutional nature and builds a flexible structure that could facilitate such changes over its lifespan. Activities required of all S-STEM-Hub projects: Regardless of focus, all Research Hubs must propose and budget for activities to:
Regardless of the focus, all proposals for a Research Hub must describe a plan to include and leverage the diversity of constituents, approaches, disciplines, and ideas that may exist within a thematic topic, and a strategy to explore new knowledge and generate best practices that will be transferable to other locations. While the exact structure of a Research Hub may take many different forms, a successful S-STEM-Hub proposal must:
III. Award InformationAnticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement or Standard Grant Estimated Number of Awards: 1 to 11 S-STEM-REC – one award, as a cooperative agreement. S-STEM-Hub – up to 10 awards, as standard grants. Anticipated Funding Amount: $45,000,000 Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds. IV. Eligibility InformationWho May Submit Proposals:
Who May Serve as PI:
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
V. Proposal Preparation And Submission InstructionsA. Proposal Preparation InstructionsLetters of Intent (required): For S-STEM-REC proposals only, proposers must complete a letter of intent (LOI). The content of LOIs is not evaluated and is used for NSF merit review planning purposes only. Submitting an LOI is required prior to full S-STEM-REC proposal submission. LOIs must include the following information:
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:
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via FastLane or Grants.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 FastLane or Research.gov. PAPPG Chapter II.D.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals. See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions. Please see Section II of this solicitation for details on all the expected critical activities of S-STEM-Hub or S-STEM-REC and the corresponding requirements for proposals. B. Budgetary InformationCost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. Other Budgetary Limitations: For S-STEM-REC proposals, limit of $3 million per year for a maximum of 5 years. See budget preparations requirements section for other details. For S-STEM-Hub proposals, limit of $3 million total over a maximum of 5 years. Budget Preparation Instructions: For S-STEM-REC proposals only:
Both, S-STEM-REC and S-STEM-Hub proposers should budget for an external evaluator to evaluate the project and provide reports of at least 2 formative evaluation exercises during the life of the award and one summative evaluation report at the end of the award. All proposers should also include their travel funds for the entire leadership team to attend the 3-day S-STEM PI Meeting in Washington D.C. every other year. C. Due Dates
D. FastLane/Research.gov/Grants.gov RequirementsFor Proposals Submitted Via FastLane or Research.gov:
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Proposers that submitted via FastLane or Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application. VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review ProceduresProposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1. A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/. Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Building the Future: Investing in Discovery and Innovation - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 – 2022. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning. NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports. A. Merit Review Principles and CriteriaThe National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects. 1. Merit Review Principles These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent. 2. Merit Review Criteria All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:
The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education. Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate. Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria In addition to the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact criteria, for S-STEM-REC proposals only, reviewers will be asked to consider the evidence of the following central aspects:
B. Review and Selection ProcessProposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation. After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation. After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk. Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding. VII. Award Administration InformationA. Notification of the AwardNotification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.) B. Award ConditionsAn NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail. *These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Special Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply for S-STEM-Hub. The S-STEM-REC award will be made in the form of Cooperative Agreement. The Cooperative Agreement will have an extensive section of Special Conditions relating to the period of performance, detailed work description, awardee responsibilities, NSF responsibilities, joint NSF awardee responsibilities, funding and funding schedule, reporting and evaluation requirements, key personnel, and other conditions. NSF will provide general oversight and monitoring of the S-STEM-REC to help assure effective performance and administration, as well as facilitating any coordination necessary to further the objectives of the S-STEM-REC and the S-STEM program as a whole. Within the first 90 days of the award, the lead organization of the S-STEM-REC should submit to NSF an integrated and coordinated strategic plan for addressing the goals and objectives delineated in this solicitation and addressed in the proposal including a virtual infrastructure to facilitate collaborative activities and the accomplishment and implementation of a set of specified activities and targeted outcomes. C. Reporting RequirementsFor all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public. Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data. PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI. More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Additional Reporting Requirements As part of the NSF Management/Oversight of the S-STEM-REC, the NSF Managing Program Director and an ad-hoc NSF Site Visit Team will schedule an annual site visit to interact with the S-STEM-REC and give feedback to the S-STEM-REC leadership. As part of their regular management, the S-STEM-REC should plan to collect stakeholder satisfaction data at least once annually and include the results of this community feedback during their interactions with the NSF Site Visit Team. In addition to regular annual reporting, NSF S-STEM-REC awardees will generate and publish a Biennial S-STEM Impact Report. The generation of the Biennial Impact Report includes a synthesis of the impact of the S-STEM program across the Nation for which the S-STEM-REC needs to collect pertinent data and becomes part of the reporting requirements in addition to the regular NSF annual and final reporting requirements for all awardees. As a cooperative agreement, NSF staff will coordinate regular check ins with the S-STEM-REC leadership, at least once every quarter or more frequently as needed. S-STEM-Hub awardees should plan for a reverse site visit every other year. Reverse site visits will generally occur at the beginning of years 3 and 5 of the award during the PI meeting in Washington D.C. These reviews will focus on accomplishments, challenges, changes in the project, and lessons learned. PIs will be provided with expectations and requirements at least 3 months in advance of the review. VIII. Agency ContactsPlease note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact. General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
For questions related to the use of FastLane or Research.gov, contact:
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
IX. Other InformationThe NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website. Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov. About The National Science FoundationThe National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering." NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research. NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.E.6 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals. The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339. The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
Privacy Act And Public Burden StatementsThe information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne H. Plimpton |
