NSF 10-522: Alliances for Broadening Participation in STEM (ABP)

Program Solicitation 10-522

National Science Foundation Directorate for Education & Human Resources      Division of Human Resource Development

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

     March 24, 2010

      Bridge to the Doctorate Proposals

     April 07, 2010

      Innovation through Institutional Integration

     October 08, 2010

      Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation & LSAMP Educational Research Proposals

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.

• A. James  Hicks, Program Director, LSAMP, LSAMP-BD, 815 N, telephone: (703) 292-8640, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: ahicks@nsf.gov

• Martha  James, Assistant Program Director, LSAMP, LSAMP-BD, 815, telephone: (703) 292-7772, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: mjames@nsf.gov

• Maurice  Dues, Program Specialist, LSAMP, LSAMP-BD, 815, telephone: (703) 292-8632, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: mdues@nsf.gov

• William  Eckberg, Program Director, AGEP, 815, telephone: 703-292-4679, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: weckberg@nsf.gov

• Al  Wilson, Program Analyst, AGEP, 815, telephone: (301) 292-4835, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: awilson@nsf.gov

• Cynthia   R Douglas, Program Specialist, AGEP, 815, telephone: (703) 292-5175, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: cdouglas@nsf.gov

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

• 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award:  Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards:    25 to  32   LSAMP: In FY2010, this includes 14 to 18 BD grants of $987,000 each for 24 months. In FY2011, this includes 10-12 new LSAMP cooperative agreements of up to $1M per year and 1-2 educational research awards. AGEP: In FY2010, only continuing increments will be funded. I³: Up to 10 continuing awards will be made in this Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) competition, pending availability of funds.

Anticipated Funding Amount:   $25,000,000  to $29,000,000  for the LSAMP program for awards made through this solicitation, pending availability of funds. - For the AGEP program, only continuing increments will be funded in FY2010. $5,500,000 for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) projects across multiple EHR programs pending the availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Organization Limit: 

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• LSAMP:  Only baccalaurate-producing institutions may serve as lead institutions for LSAMP alliances. 

  LSAMP-BD:  Only senior-level LSAMP alliances (alliances with 10 or more years of continual LSAMP funding) are eligible to submit proposals for BD support.

  LSAMP Educational Research Proposals:  Universities and two-and four-year colleges (including community colleges) located and accredited in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members.  Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
  
  I³:  Eligibility for Innovations through Institutional Integration (I³) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two-and four year colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US. If the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research, then all categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide are eligible to submit.

   

PI Limit: 

LSAMP and LSAMP-BD:   To promote institutional commitments to increase the quality and quantity of underrepresented minorities in STEM disciplines at the undergraduate level, the President or Provost of the lead institution should serve as the Principal Investigator.  A full explanation should be provided for a PI designation in variance with this requirement.  Co-Principal investigators from partner institutions may be designated as appropriate for the project.

LSAMP Educational Research:  Eligible PI(s) for proposals from alliance partner institutions applying for LSAMP educational research support should be the cognizant faculty member(s) conducting the research and/or responsible for the educational research project.

I^3: - The Principal Investigator for an Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) proposal must be the university provost or equivalent chief academic officer, unless the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research. 

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 

LSAMP and LSAMP-BD:  Only one proposal per alliance. 

LSAMP Educational Research Proposals:  Only one educational research proposal will be accepted per alliance.  Partner institutions must coordinate submissions of educational research proposals with their lead institution.

I³:   For Fiscal Year 2010, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance the goals of Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³):  CREST, GSE, HBCU-UP, ITEST, LSAMP, MSP, Noyce, RDE, and TCUP.  Given the focus on institutional integration, an institution may submit only one proposal to this I³ competition.     

 

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 

 LSAMP, LSAMP-BD and LSAMP Educational Research Proposals:  One proposal per PI.

Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³):  No limit specified.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not Applicable

• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable

• 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:  Cost Sharing is not required under this solicitation.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:  The following limitations apply to BD proposals only. NSF will provide a flat $15,000 allowance per award in lieu of indirect costs. 

• Other Budgetary Limitations:  Not Applicable

C. Due Dates

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

       March 24, 2010

        Bridge to the Doctorate Proposals

       April 07, 2010

        Innovation through Institutional Integration

       October 08, 2010

        Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation & LSAMP Educational Research Proposals

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

Organization Limit: 

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• LSAMP:  Only baccalaurate-producing institutions may serve as lead institutions for LSAMP alliances. 

  LSAMP-BD:  Only senior-level LSAMP alliances (alliances with 10 or more years of continual LSAMP funding) are eligible to submit proposals for BD support.

  LSAMP Educational Research Proposals:  Universities and two-and four-year colleges (including community colleges) located and accredited in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members.  Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
  
  I³:  Eligibility for Innovations through Institutional Integration (I³) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two-and four year colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US. If the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research, then all categories of proposers identified in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide are eligible to submit.

   

PI Limit: 

LSAMP and LSAMP-BD:   To promote institutional commitments to increase the quality and quantity of underrepresented minorities in STEM disciplines at the undergraduate level, the President or Provost of the lead institution should serve as the Principal Investigator.  A full explanation should be provided for a PI designation in variance with this requirement.  Co-Principal investigators from partner institutions may be designated as appropriate for the project.

LSAMP Educational Research:  Eligible PI(s) for proposals from alliance partner institutions applying for LSAMP educational research support should be the cognizant faculty member(s) conducting the research and/or responsible for the educational research project.

I^3: - The Principal Investigator for an Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) proposal must be the university provost or equivalent chief academic officer, unless the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research. 

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 

LSAMP and LSAMP-BD:  Only one proposal per alliance. 

LSAMP Educational Research Proposals:  Only one educational research proposal will be accepted per alliance.  Partner institutions must coordinate submissions of educational research proposals with their lead institution.

I³:   For Fiscal Year 2010, proposals are being solicited in nine EHR programs that advance the goals of Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³):  CREST, GSE, HBCU-UP, ITEST, LSAMP, MSP, Noyce, RDE, and TCUP.  Given the focus on institutional integration, an institution may submit only one proposal to this I³ competition.     

 

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 

 LSAMP, LSAMP-BD and LSAMP Educational Research Proposals:  One proposal per PI.

Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³):  No limit specified.

Additional Eligibility Info:

LSAMP:  An alliance may hold only one active award at a time.  The alliance must consist of one or more graduate degree granting institution(s) as well as 2-4 year degree-granting institutions, including community colleges.   An institution may be a member in only one alliance.

LSAMP-BD:  Only LSAMP alliances at the senior level may apply for BD funding.  Proposals for BD funding must be submitted by the LSAMP alliance lead institution only.  BD sites at alliance institutions other than the lead alliance institution will be funded through subaward agreements.

I³:  Eligibility for Innovations through Institutional Integration (I³) is limited to institutions of higher education (including two-and four year colleges) located and accredited in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members, unless the proposal is exclusively for I³ STEM educational or related research. An institution may not receive more than one I³ award.

 

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via 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.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

After selecting the ABP program solicitation number on the COVER SHEET, enter the program name - the "NSF Unit Consideration" must be specified - select either Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP) for LSAMP and BD (specify BD in the title if a BD proposal), or Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³). For Grants.gov users, the program solicitation number will be pre-populated by Grants.gov on the NSF Grant Application Cover Page.

Proposals failing to clearly identify the appropriate program may be returned without review at the discretion of NSF program staff.

INNOVATION THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION (I³) PROJECTS

The proposal should articulate the project’s vision, goals, and anticipated outcomes and describe how the project will achieve them. The proposal should draw on the existing, relevant base of literature and articulate how the plan of work is so informed. It is expected that implementation of the plan of work will impact participating NSF awards, as well as other relevant parts of the institution(s). The proposal should, therefore, address how the goals of the overall project are compatible with the goals of the individual integrated components, as well as how the project is both compatible with and beneficial for the host institution(s). The proposal should include a management/governance plan that describes who is responsible for what, a timeline, and an evaluation plan. All proposals must clearly demonstrate that the submitting team has the capability to manage the project, organize the work, and meet deadlines.

Each proposed implementation project in Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) should have an evaluation plan to assess progress and success in meeting project goals and objectives. An independent, external project-level evaluation is to be conducted to inform the institution and others of the progress and findings of the grant activities, especially those that address the project’s synergistic activity (i.e., the value added by I³). I³ projects are expected to have baseline data, establish measurable targets, and collect evidence to determine annual progress and long-term outcomes. If applicable, it is highly desirable to establish a systematic plan to track student participants beyond their involvement in the project. Project-level evaluation should be designed to offer feedback for strengthening implementation over the course of the project, provide credible evidence to justify continued investment in the project, and report results (and describe models/paradigms) of institutional and/or disciplinary changes associated with the investment strategy.

Each I³ project, as part of a national effort, is expected to cooperate in the monitoring and independent portfolio evaluation efforts conducted by NSF’s contracted evaluators. While each project will propose its own types of specific qualitative and quantitative measures, some later standardization of performance monitoring is anticipated so that NSF can conduct a summative/impact evaluation. The I³ portfolio (summative/impact) evaluation will be designed to determine how effectively I³ is contributing to the knowledge base, building a community of innovators, strengthening/advancing the higher education STEM infrastructure, and promoting collaborations that advance the goals of I³.

Proposals for research must address one or more I³ goals and discuss the current state of knowledge relevant to the project. This brief literature review should clearly inform the proposed research. The project description should identify the methods the project will use and explain why those methods are appropriate to the questions that the proposal addresses. Methodologies must be matched with strategic research questions, and the logic among research question, method, analysis, inference, and evidence should be well articulated.

The results of prior, relevant NSF investment(s), especially projects on which the proposed institutional integration is based, are to be described and supported by data, along with a discussion of both successes and failures. The proposal should also clearly indicate how the intended work differs from, builds on, or is otherwise informed by prior efforts.

B. Budgetary Information

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

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: The following limitations apply to BD proposals only. NSF will provide a flat $15,000 allowance per award in lieu of indirect costs. 

C. Due Dates

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

       March 24, 2010

        Bridge to the Doctorate Proposals

       April 07, 2010

        Innovation through Institutional Integration

       October 08, 2010

        Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation & LSAMP Educational Research Proposals

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

• For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

  Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of preparation and submission via FastLane are 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.

  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.

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://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding 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.

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.

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.

What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

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:

For proposals to the LSAMP Program, additional review criteria will apply. 

SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR LSAMP AND BD PROPOSALS

All proposals will be reviewed for strategic fidelity, relevance and usefulness of the proposed interventions and anticipated outcomes, evidence of institutionalization and sustainability plans, and contribution to the body of knowledge in recruitment and retention of underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines and into the workforce as well as the potential to transform STEM education and student learning.

In addition to the standard NSF review criteria of demonstrating intellectual merit and broader impacts of the project, reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals in terms of linkages to other NSF programs and plans for rigorously evaluating the projects or programs over the duration of the grant period.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using the following program specific review criteria:

Linkages:  Proposals should clearly demonstrate linkages to other NSF-funded programs and the benefits to alliance students and faculty.  For projects with BD funding, reviewers will be instructed to evaluate evidence of formal connections and involvement with AGEP institutions or other graduate education programs and organizations as well as the continuation of these connections through the STEM doctoral degree.

Evaluation:  Proposals will be evaluated on the rigor of the evaluation plan.  In addition, the adequacy of resources and expertise to implement a rigorous evaluation over the duration of the award period will be assessed. 

For educational research proposals, reviewers will be tasked to assess the proposal in terms of topic (Is this an emerging STEM educational research topic?), research design and methodology, and the potential for the findings and/or recommendations to provide educators with practical and successful strategies for broader integration within educational systems (departments, institutions, alliances). 

Innovativeness and Value-Added:  All proposals will be evaluated on tranformational program development in the academic and social environment (including the departmental, institutional and alliance levels) leading to the production of highly competitive students in STEM disciplines from underrepresented minority populations.  Examples of transformational program development activities include, but are not limited, to:  (1) cyber-enabled learning of STEM disciplines, (2) utilization of STEM educators within the partnerships to enhance skills and knowledge content of the academic community, (3) professional development activities for the academic community and (4) increasing the understanding of science beyond the classroom. 

SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR I-CUBED PROPOSALS

In addition to the two NSF criteria for Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts, special review criteria for Innovation through Institutional Integration (I³) implementation projects are:

•        The extent to which the proposed project addresses the interrelated goals for institutional integration and adds value to existing NSF awards.

•        The extent to which there is a demonstrated track record of success for the existing NSF awards on which the proposed institutional integration is based.

•        The degree of innovation in the proposed project as evidenced by a depth and quality of creative, coherent, and strategic actions that extend beyond commonplace approaches to normal institutional operations.    

•        The extent to which the proposed project addresses programming, policies, and practices commensurate with the sustained institutional change needed to seed and nurture appropriate, synergistic relationships among discrete NSF awards.     

 

 

 

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: In addition to general terms and conditions, special award conditions may be included in the cooperative agreements. For Bridge to the Doctorate awards, residual funds from standard grants may not be reallocated to other cohorts.

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, 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 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. The project outcomes report 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.

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:

• A. James   Hicks, Program Director, LSAMP, LSAMP-BD, 815 N, telephone: (703) 292-8640, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: ahicks@nsf.gov

• Martha   James, Assistant Program Director, LSAMP, LSAMP-BD, 815, telephone: (703) 292-7772, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: mjames@nsf.gov

• Maurice   Dues, Program Specialist, LSAMP, LSAMP-BD, 815, telephone: (703) 292-8632, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: mdues@nsf.gov

• William   Eckberg, Program Director, AGEP, 815, telephone: 703-292-4679, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: weckberg@nsf.gov

• Al   Wilson, Program Analyst, AGEP, 815, telephone: (301) 292-4835, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: awilson@nsf.gov

• Cynthia   R   Douglas, Program Specialist, AGEP, 815, telephone: (703) 292-5175, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: cdouglas@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

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

• Maurice   Dues, Program Specialist, LSAMP, LSAMP-BD, 815, telephone: (703) 292-8632, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: mdues@nsf.gov

• Cynthia   R   Douglas, Program Specialist, AGEP, 815, telephone: (703) 292-5175, fax: (703) 292-9018, email: cdouglas@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, 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.

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