Title: EarthCube: Development a Community-Driven Data and Knowledge Environment for the Geosciences(nsf13529) Date: 04/09/13 EarthCube: Developing a Community-Driven Data and Knowledge Environment for the Geosciences [1]Program Solicitation NSF 13-529 NSF Logo National Science Foundation Directorate for Geosciences Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Division of Earth Sciences Division of Ocean Sciences Office of Cyberinfrastructure Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time): March 26, 2013 EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance March 26, 2013 EarthCube Research Coordination Networks May 22, 2013 EarthCube Building Blocks May 22, 2013 EarthCube Conceptual Designs IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), [2]NSF 13-1, was issued on October 4, 2012 and is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 14, 2013. Please be advised that the guidelines contained in [3]NSF 13-1 apply to proposals submitted in response to this funding opportunity. Proposers who opt to submit prior to January 14, 2013, must also follow the guidelines contained in [4]NSF 13-1. Please be aware that significant changes have been made to the PAPPG to implement revised merit review criteria based on the National Science Board (NSB) report, [5]National Science Foundation's Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revisions. While the two merit review criteria remain unchanged (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts), guidance has been provided to clarify and improve the function of the criteria. Changes will affect the project summary and project description sections of proposals. Annual and final reports also will be affected. A by-chapter summary of this and other significant changes is provided at the beginning of both the [6]Grant Proposal Guide and the [7]Award & Administration Guide. Please note that this program solicitation may contain supplemental proposal preparation guidance and/or guidance that deviates from the guidelines established in the [8]Grant Proposal Guide. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- New Funding Opportunities and Deadlines will appear with Amendments to this solicitation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This serves as an umbrella solicitation for EarthCube. It differs from traditional NSF solicitations because funding opportunities will be amended to the solicitation in response to emerging community needs and priorities defined in collaborative activities. This solicitation provides the overarching description, vision, and goals for EarthCube that will remain unchanged over time. Amendments to the solicitation will add information on funding opportunities. Notifications announcing any EarthCube solicitation updates with Amendments will be sent through the NSF solicitation alert system. The overarching description, vision, and goals of EarthCube and the first funding opportunity (Amendment I) can be found in the Program Description section below. In Amendment I, all specifications of the proposal call are described, including: (a) what types of proposals are being solicited; (b) pointers to the relevant community documents that guide the call and determine the focus of funding opportunities; (c) specific funding mechanism(s) employed; (d) proposal due dates or submission windows; (e) any special review criteria and/or reporting criteria; and (f) other specifics of the funding opportunity. As community guidance moves EarthCube forward, new Amendments will replace old Amendments. A listing of all Amendments can be found on the NSF EarthCube Program website. ([9]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/). Amendment II This solicitation has been amended to include the second funding opportunity (Amendment II) in the Program Description section below. Amendment II describes all specifications of the proposal call including (a) types of proposals being solicited; (b) specific funding mechanisms; (c) award information; and (d) special review criteria and proposal preparation instructions. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS General Information Program Title: EarthCube A Community-Driven Data and Knowledge Environment for the Geosciences Synopsis of Program: EarthCube is a community-driven activity sponsored through a partnership between the NSF Directorate of Geosciences and Office of Cyberinfrastructure to transform the conduct of geosciences research and education. EarthCube aims to create a well-connected and facile environment to share data and knowledge in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner, thus accelerating the ability of the geosciences community to understand and predict the Earth system. Achieving EarthCube will require a long-term dialog between the NSF and the interested scientific communities to develop cyberinfrastructure that is thoughtfully and systematically built to meet the current and future requirements of geoscientists. New avenues will be supported to gather community requirements and priorities for the elements of EarthCube, and to capture the best technologies to meet the current and future needs of the broad and diverse geoscience community. The EarthCube portfolio will consist of interconnected projects and activities that engage the geoscience, cyberinfrastructure, computer science, and associated communities. The portfolio of activities and funding opportunities will evolve over time depending on the status of the EarthCube effort and the scientific and cultural needs of the geosciences community. This umbrella solicitation for EarthCube allows funding opportunities to be flexible and responsive to emerging community needs and collaborative processes. The EarthCube vision and goals do not change over time, and this section of the solicitation will remain constant. Funding opportunities to develop elements of the EarthCube environment will be described in Amendments to this solicitation. Amendments will appear in the Program Description Section of the solicitation and will include details on the parameters, scope, conditions, and requirements of the proposal call. Researchers who receive alerts related to solicitation releases will receive notification when the EarthCube solicitation is updated with an Amendment. 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. * Barbara Ransom, Directorate for Geosciences, telephone: (703) 292-7792, email: [10]bransom@nsf.gov * Eva Zanzerkia, Directorate for Geosciences, telephone: (703) 292-4734, email: [11]ezanzerk@nsf.gov * Irene D. Lombardo, Office of Cyberinfrastructure, telephone: (703) 292-7098, email: [12]ilombard@nsf.gov Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): * 47.050 --- Geosciences * 47.080 --- Office of Cyberinfrastructure Award Information Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement Estimated Number of Awards: 18 Up to 18 awards total for amendments I and II. The number will be determined based on the results of the merit review process and availability of funds. Amendment I anticipates up to 7 awards, 1 for governance and up to 6 for RCNs. Amendment II anticipates up to 11 which includes up to 6 for building blocks and up to 5 for conceptual designs. Anticipated Funding Amount: $14,500,000 NSF anticipates funding for Amendment I (Test Enterprise Governance and Research Coordination Networks) to be $5,000,000 pending availability of funds. The size of awards will vary based on the scope and complexity of the funding opportunity and the projects supported under that call. NSF anticipates funding for Amendment II (EarthCube Building Blocks and Conceptual Designs) to be $9,500,000 pending availability of funds. The size of awards will vary based on the scope and complexity of the funding opportunity and the projects supported under that call. Specific size and duration limitations will be articulated in Amendments to this solicitation. Eligibility Information Organization Limit: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: * Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions. * Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities. * For-profit organizations: U.S. commercial organizations, especially small businesses with strong capabilities in scientific or engineering research or education. * Other Federal Agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): Contact the appropriate program before preparing a proposal for submission. PI Limit: None Specified Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: None Specified Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: An individual may be listed as PI or co-PI on the cover page of only one EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance proposal. There is no limit on the number of proposals from a PI or co-PI for the EarthCube RCN call, The EarthCube Building Blocks call and the EarthCube Conceptual Designs call. PIs or co-PIs on EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance proposals may submit to the EarthCube RCN call, the EarthCube Building Blocks call and the EarthCube Conceptual Designs call. 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: [13]http://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: [14]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gran tsgovguide) B. Budgetary Information * Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. * Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable * Other Budgetary Limitations: Not Applicable C. Due Dates * Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time): March 26, 2013 EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance March 26, 2013 EarthCube Research Coordination Networks May 22, 2013 EarthCube Building Blocks May 22, 2013 EarthCube Conceptual Designs 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: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply. TABLE OF CONTENTS [15]Summary of Program Requirements I. [16]Introduction II. [17]Program Description III. [18]Award Information IV. [19]Eligibility Information V. [20]Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions A. [21]Proposal Preparation Instructions B. [22]Budgetary Information C. [23]Due Dates D. [24]FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements VI. [25]NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures A. [26]Merit Review Principles and Criteria B. [27]Review and Selection Process VII. [28]Award Administration Information A. [29]Notification of the Award B. [30]Award Conditions C. [31]Reporting Requirements VIII. [32]Agency Contacts IX. [33]Other Information I. INTRODUCTION EarthCube is a community-driven activity aimed at transforming the conduct of geosciences research and education. This effort is a partnership between the NSF Directorate of Geosciences (GEO) and the Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCI). The goal of EarthCube is to create a well-connected and facile environment to share data and knowledge for all of the geosciences in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner and to accelerate our ability to understand and predict the Earth system. In 2009 the Advisory Committee for GEO issued the GEOVision report: ([34]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/acgeo/geovision/geo_strategic_plans_2012.p df), identifying the challenges and opportunities facing the geosciences in the next decade. The report issued this call to action: "Over the next decade, the geosciences community commits to developing a framework to understand and predict responses of the Earth as a system, from the space-atmosphere boundary to the core, including the influences of humans and ecosystems." In 2011 NSF initiated Cyberinfrastructure for the 21st Century (CIF21) led by OCI. This initiative emphasizes the importance of enabling computational and data-rich science, engineering, and education and creating within the US a sustainable, community-based and open cyberinfrastructure for researchers and educators ([35]http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504730). EarthCube responds to the challenges and opportunities of the GeoVision report and the vision of a national cyberinfrastructure in CIF21. In this effort NSF encourages the community to systematically build cyberinfrastructure for the geosciences that is guided by community dialog, governance, and a common vision. EarthCube endeavors to create an environment that is extendable, and manageable and employs or creates technologies that meet the current and future needs of the geosciences community. It is expected that EarthCube will build off present NSF and Federal investments in geosciences cyberinfrastructure and will integrate state-of-the art cyberinfrastructure, software development and computer science techniques. The EarthCube program is designed to be responsive to geosciences community needs and input, as well as technological advances. Funding opportunities in the EarthCube portfolio will be defined in Amendments to this solicitation and will be based on themes, requirements, and other strategic or community documents from open community activities fostered by EarthCube such as, but not limited to, community meetings, workshops and design and demonstration activities. Amendments to this solicitation will appear in the Program Description and will include details on the type, scope, duration, and size of proposals being requested, funding requirements, additional review criteria, and due dates. II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The goal of EarthCube is to create a well-connected and facile environment to share data and knowledge for all of the geosciences in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner, accelerating our ability to understand and predict the Earth system. How To Use This Solicitation: As noted in the Important Information Section at the beginning of this solicitation, this document serves as an umbrella solicitation for EarthCube. Funding opportunities will be responsive to themes, requirements, and other strategic or community documents from open community activities. In the structure of this solicitation, funding opportunities will be articulated in Amendments in the Program Description. The description, vision, and overall goals for EarthCube will not change over time. Only the Amendment Section (see below) will change. When a funding opportunity is available, the Amendment section will detail the specifications of the proposal call including (a) what types of proposals are being solicited; (b) references to the relevant community documents that guided the call and determined the focus of the funding opportunity; (c) the specific funding mechanism(s) employed; (d) proposal due dates or submission windows; (e) any special review criteria and/or reporting criteria; (f) and other specifics of the funding opportunity. As EarthCube evolves over time, new Amendments will replace old Amendments. A listing of all Amendments will be found on the EarthCube NSF Program website. ([36]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AMENDMENT I: This is the first Amendment to the EarthCube solicitation. The document is arranged as follows: A. Funding Opportunities (1) Test Enterprise Governance * Description of the activity * Specific Responsibilities * Core Requirements * Additional Review Criteria * Additional Proposal Preparation Guidelines * Special Award Requirements (2) EarthCube Research Coordination Networks (RCN) * Description of the activity * Specific Requirements * Additional Review Criteria * Additional Proposal Preparation Guidelines B. Preliminary information of activities that will appear in the next Amendment to this solicitation, (Amendment II): EarthCube Enterprise activities. The detailed description of solicited activities supported in Amendment II, specific deadline dates and additional requirements for proposals will be released at least 90 days prior to the deadline. It is anticipated that the deadline for Amendment II will occur Spring, 2013. Amendment II WILL NOT affect the funding opportunities in Amendment I. A. Funding Opportunities: (1) EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance Deadline: March 26, 2013 Award Information: 1 award is anticipated. Estimated Award Size and Duration: $2,000,000-$3,000,000 for 24 months. The actual number and size of awards will be determined based on merit review of the quality of proposals, and availability of funds. Scope: Proposals are requested to develop and test an EarthCube governance structure. The critical importance of a community-driven and operated governance structure for EarthCube activities has been highlighted in two 2012 EarthCube community documents ([37]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/docs/EarthCubeGovernanceFramewor k.pdf and [38]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/docs/EarthCubeGovernanceRoadmap.p df). These documents reflect months of deliberation and work on EarthCube organization by the community and represent the best consensus view on managing the EarthCube effort to date. The documents acknowledge that the nature and function of the governing framework for an effort like EarthCube is complex and will evolve over the lifecycle of the EarthCube process. Understanding the scope, function, and goals of the governance structure now and in the future will require further exploration to determine an appropriate and effective model. Test Enterprise Governance proposals must be collaborative and broadly inclusive of geoscientists, cyberinfrastructure and computer scientists. They should effectively engage interested agency, industry and international partners. Proposals for an EarthCube project office are not appropriate for the focus of this particular Amendment. This is a phased planning and implementation activity. EarthCube governance will be developed and fully implemented in two phases. Phase I: Test Enterprise Governance phase, which is the focus of this Amendment, and Phase II: Enterprise Governance phase, which is a follow-on to Phase I. Solicitation for Enterprise Governance will be contingent on the successful execution of the Test Enterprise Governance responsibilities listed below. Phase I: EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance will explore, develop and evaluate governance paradigms. It is expected that at the end of a 24 month award 1) an appropriate and community-agreed governance framework will be selected; 2) this EarthCube Enterprise Governance framework will be vetted with the community and NSF; 3) the specific charter, by-laws and terms of reference of the governance framework will be demonstrated and evaluated in a pilot; and 4) proposed next steps for implementing governance will be recommended. The framework, pilot, and experience from the development and evaluation in Phase I will guide any future funding opportunity to implement and further evolve EarthCube Enterprise Governance over a several year period. Test Enterprise Governance will be implemented in two stages, Planning and Demonstration, that are detailed below. Each stage will span approximately 12 months and will require successful execution of the Specific Responsibilities for that stage. Success will be determined through an NSF review that must be successfully completed before funding and activities for the next stage is initiated. Specific Responsibilities: The EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance phase entails three specific responsibilities, a Planning stage, a Demonstration stage and on-going Outreach activities. (A) Planning: Test Enterprise Governance proposals should discuss specific plans for developing an organization that can manage the following responsibilities. Successful completion of this stage and progression to the next stage will be determined by an NSF review of the governance framework, including the terms of reference, by-laws and charter that are produced. 1. Work with the community to explore, develop and evaluate governance models that are best able to meet EarthCube needs. This activity must consider existing infrastructure and those approaches to governance. The activity must also foster broad community involvement and outreach through avenues including, but not limited to, EarthCube RCNs, other EarthCube awards and workshops. Efforts towards this goal are documented in the Governance Community Group Roadmap: ([39]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/docs/EarthCubeGovernanceRoadmap. pdf) and the Governance Framework Document: ([40]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/docs/EarthCubeGovernanceFramewor k.pdf). 2. Create an EarthCube governance framework, which should include governing principles, specific terms of reference, by-laws and charter for EarthCube Enterprise Governance that are vetted by the community and will be reviewed by NSF. Proposals must describe how the community will be involved in the vetting process. The charter must enable the EarthCube Enterprise Governance awardee to carry out the following tasks: a. Coordinate, organize and set priorities for a complex and varied set of cyberinfrastructure building and coordinating activities that will change over time. Working with and engaging other projects and components that are part of EarthCube, such as Building Blocks, is required. Sustainable solutions that work with existing organizations and institutions are also necessary. b. Coordinate and manage community convergence towards a viable reference architecture for EarthCube cyberinfrastructure. Architecture creation and development activities will be supported under EarthCube Conceptual Designs. These projects must be actively engaged by EarthCube Governance. c. Engage geosciences and related communities in activities including but not limited to gathering requirements, defining common challenges and organizing standards development. This task should complement and strengthen ongoing community engagement activities supported under EarthCube and other parts of NSF. For example, the Test Enterprise Governance awardee must engage with EarthCube RCNs, EarthCube workshops, and other EarthCube components as they arise. d. Perform other responsibilities as defined by the community. Proposals must reference community documents to justify additional responsibilities for EarthCube Enterprise Governance, and explain how they will further the goals of EarthCube. 3. Articulate for the community and implement through outreach the EarthCube vision, mission, and goals. (B) Demonstration: The Test Enterprise Governance awardee must implement and demonstrate the effectiveness of the EarthCube governance framework during a demonstration stage. This stage will begin after an NSF administered peer review of the EarthCube Enterprise Governance framework. Proposals should describe the demonstration stage and the process for assessing effectiveness of the governance framework with the community. During this stage, the Test Enterprise Governance awardee must show how well the governance framework can organize and coordinate between a diverse set of activities, including RCNs, conceptual architecture plans, and cyberinfrastructure projects, among others. The Test Enterprise Governance awardee must recognize that activities will change over time and demonstrate how effective their processes will be in defining community vetted priorities, and how the EarthCube governance framework will be flexible and sustainable if implemented as a multi-year activity. This stage will also culminate with an NSF review of the effectiveness of this Test Enterprise governance framework. (C) Outreach and Communications: A third responsibility for Test Enterprise Governance is a thread that continues through both stages of the project. In addition to the outreach activities required for planning and demonstrating the governing framework, Test Enterprise Governance will be expected to manage an EarthCube website that serves the needs of the community by disseminating information, providing forums for collaboration and connections for geoscientists, cyberinfrastructure and computer scientists, and other interested participants in EarthCube. This includes, but is not limited to, organizing and managing yearly status of EarthCube meetings that help to define priorities and directions for EarthCube. Core Expectations: The awardee will develop, implement, and test the enterprise governance framework that meets the following expectations. Proposals will be evaluated for how well they achieve the following expectations. 1. Defined Rules: A set of principles that provide fair and impartial frameworks to help guide a variety of community efforts and fully protect the interests of stakeholders. 2. Transparency: Transparent processes that provide information in easily understandable forms and media; that are freely available and directly accessible to those who will be affected by governance policies and practices. Decisions must be taken with respect to community guidance and recommendations must be in compliance with established rules. 3. Responsiveness: Governance processes designed to serve the best interests of stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe. 4. Consensus: Consultation and reconnaissance to understand the different interests of stakeholders in order to achieve broad consensus in a sustainable and prudent manner for the entire stakeholder group. 5. Inclusiveness: The opportunity for stakeholders to maintain, enhance, or generally improve their well-being through broad participation; engagement of the entire diversity of the geosciences community, including underrepresented groups. 6. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Processes established and maintained to produce favorable results, while making the best use of the resources - human, technological, financial, and organizations - at its disposal. 7. Accountability: The ability to demonstrate to those who will be affected by its decisions and actions the decision-making processes and defined rules applied to the process, changes to decisions and actions based on feedback, and transparency in how funds are spent. As an additional resource, an EarthCube Governance Framework document articulating a set of guiding principles developed by the Governance Working Group and community is available. This document may be used to guide the implementation of EarthCube governance functions. ([41]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/docs/EarthCubeGovernanceFramewor k.pdf) Additional Review Criteria for Test Enterprise Governance a. Does the proposal include an appropriately broad collaboration of geoscientists, cyberinfrastructure and computer scientists, institutions, etc. in the organizational structure? Is the organizational structure robust enough to meet EarthCube goals? Will the proposed organization be successful in recruiting broad participation in the organizational structure? b. How well does the proposal describe a plan to meet the Core Expectations for EarthCube Enterprise Governance? Does the proposed organization have a high probability of successfully carrying out the Specific Responsibilities, and how will this be determined? Are metrics for success and compliance with Core Expectations well described? c. How well do the PIs propose to address community-articulated goals, concepts, and guiding principles? Are these well reference and consistent with on-going EarthCube discussions? d. How qualified and experienced are the proposers in organizing and running broad, community-based, decision-making initiatives? Proposal Preparation Guidelines for Test Enterprise Governance: Proposals must follow these guidelines in addition to, or in replacement of, the requirements in Section V.A A single institution must represent and coordinate all proposed activities. Collaborative Proposals are not accepted, and collaborative activities should be supported via subawards. Projects are expected to have strong management and integration plans that describe how the activity will be coordinated between partners and how the partners will function as a whole. (A) Cover Page - The title of the proposed project should begin with the words: "EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance:" (B) Project Summary - The Project Summary must begin with the title of the proposal and a list of all the collaborating institutions involved in the proposal. (C) Project Description - This section should contain two sections with specific length conditions: 1) Proposed Activities: 20 pages maximum, that should include the following components: a. Concept and vision; b. Process and workplan for achieving the Specific Responsibilities and Core Expectations; c. Evidence of capability; d. Evaluation plan and metrics; and e. Broader Impacts: per guidance in the GPG, the Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities. You can decide where to include this section within the Project Description. 2) Management and Integration Plan - The management and integration plan can be up to 3 pages in addition to the 20 pages for the Proposed Activities. Test Enterprise Governance proposals must have a detailed management and integration plan. The management and integration plan must describe how the group effort will be coordinated, how the disciplinary components will be integrated, how data, models, infrastructure developments and ideas will be disseminated and shared with the community. A clear time line of expected outcomes must be included. (D) Budget - Funds from this program may not support independent, individual research projects of the participants; nor are they to be used as a mechanism for a mini-grant awarding program. Each subaward must have an associated, annualized budget with a budget justification that is no more than two pages. (E) Special Information and Supplementary Documents - Letters of Collaboration must be provided for any organization or individuals that are detailed in the work and management plan but are not receiving funds in the proposal, and are therefore not listed in a subaward in the proposal. The Letter of Collaboration must list the personnel participating in the project and describe the work that will be conducted for the project. Information on acceptable content of Letters of Collaboration may be found in the GPG, and must be followed. Special Award Requirements The second year of funding for Test Enterprise Governance may be contingent upon the successful review of the development of EarthCube governing principles as outlined in the Specific Responsibilities for Test Enterprise Governance. (2) EarthCube Research Coordination Networks (RCN) Deadline: March 26, 2013 Award Information: Estimated Number of Awards: 4-6 Estimated Award Size and Duration: a maximum of 24 months and up to a maximum of $300,000. NSF solicits proposals for EarthCube Research Coordination Networks (RCN). More information on Research Coordination Networks can be found here [42]http:www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=11691. Proposers are strongly encouraged to contact EarthCube Program Directors (see[43] http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/) for contacts to discuss the appropriateness of an EarthCube RCN proposal. EarthCube RCNs are intended to advance geosciences cyberinfrastructure through interaction and understanding among geoscientists, CI experts, and computer scientists. RCNs will provide geosciences communities with the opportunity to present coherent and representative plans for their cyberinfrastructure needs. Outcomes should impact the communities involved, moving them closer to shared goals. They will provide a voice and impact the EarthCube process for the geosciences end-user communities, influencing the direction of EarthCube architecture and cyberinfrastructure developments. Awards will support geosciences communities to organize themselves and/or partner with other geosciences communities, to discuss, plan and coordinate, in a virtual setting, the standards, policies and cyberinfrastructure that will meet their end-users' common data, software, computation networking and training needs. Proposals must include participation of both geoscientists and cyber/computer scientists to be considered viable. Examples of possible EarthCube RCNs include, but are not limited to: * The development of community standards, data citation or other community plans for data management and other products of research in one or more field of the geosciences. * The discussion and articulation of common cyberinfrastructure and technology grand challenges within specific or across different geosciences disciplines, including dialog towards developing potential solutions for data integration, computation, modeling, software and/or visualization needed to meet future scientific and education goals. * Data and/or cyberinfrastructure issues involving multiple geosciences fields that will result in improved interdisciplinary access to products of scientific work or training and education. The goal of this RCN opportunity is to build partnerships between geo- and cyber/computer scientists; foster new collaborations that lead to better scientific and workflow outcomes; expose participants to new methodologies, approaches, tools, and utilities; discover synergies and reduce redundancies and duplication of effort; expose best practices and "lessons learned" in developing cyberinfrastructure and data management, and develop a stronger framework within the geosciences for enabling increased and accelerated use of new technologies. Innovative ideas for implementing novel virtual organizations, community networking strategies and collaborative technologies are essential. Broad community participation, with an emphasis on active engagement of large numbers of end-users is necessary for successful EarthCube RCNs. Specific Requirements 1. Topic/focus: EarthCube RCN proposals must involve both geoscientists and cyber/computer scientists. Proposals should specify what activities will be undertaken, what groups will be involved, what products will be generated by network activities, and how information about the network and opportunities to participate will be disseminated. The proposal should also outline the expected benefits of the network's activities in moving one or more geosciences fields forward and the implications for the broader community. 2. Participation. EarthCube RCNs will be expected to work with and involve EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance. Participation and involvement in EarthCube community events and sharing of information between EarthCube RCNs and other projects funded under EarthCube will be required. Proposals should explain how the network and structure of the organization will help facilitate these interactions. 3. Steering committee. Each RCN is required to have a steering committee comprised of network participants that include both geoscientists and cyber/computer scientists that have key roles in the leadership and/or management of the network. The steering committee should include all Co-PIs, if any are listed on the cover page of the proposal, and any other senior personnel, including any foreign collaborators involved as leaders or otherwise considered senior personnel. Therefore, the steering committee constitutes all the senior personnel for the EarthCube RCN. 4. Network participants. The size of a network is expected to vary depending on the topic or issue and the needs of the proposed activity. The network may be regional, national, or international. It is expected that a proposed network will involve investigators at diverse organizations, including different levels of academic institutions, other agencies and/or commercial partners. The inclusion of new researchers, post-docs, graduate students, and undergraduates is encouraged. In the proposal, an initial network of likely participants should be identified by position at the institution and name. However, there should be clearly developed mechanisms to maintain openness, ensure access, and actively promote participation by interested parties outside of the initial participants in the proposed network. 5. Information and material sharing. The goals of this program are to promote effective communication, provide opportunities for collaboration, and enhance cyberinfrastructure for the geosciences. When the proposed activity involves generation of community resources, the proposal should explain how the community resource relates to other existing efforts and EarthCube activities. The mechanism for timely sharing and sustainability of the activity must be described in the Data Management Plan. 6. International participation. NSF encourages international collaboration. International collaborations should clearly strengthen the proposed project activities. As NSF funding predominantly supports participation by US participants, network participants from institutions outside the US are encouraged to seek support from their respective funding organizations. NSF funds may not be used to support the expenses of the international scientists and students at their home organization. For RCN projects that involve international partners, NSF funds may be used for the following: * Travel expenses for US scientists and students participating in exchange visits integral to the RCN project * RCN-related expenses for international partners to participate in networking activities in the US. * RCN-related expenses for US participants to conduct networking activities in the international partner's home laboratory Additional Review Criteria For EarthCube RCNs a. RCNs cannot use resources to fund research or to sustain existing networks. RCN proposals will be evaluated for their creativity, innovation, and potential to advance and transform geosciences research through effective cyberinfrastructure. b. RCNs will be evaluated on how well they represent their respective geosciences communities, the quality and caliber of the collaboration with cyberinfrastructure and computer scientists, and the processes and efforts to engage a broad and diverse set of participants. c. For all proposals involving international collaborations, reviewers will consider: mutual benefits, true intellectual collaboration with the foreign partner(s), benefits to be realized from the expertise and specialized skills, facilities, sites and/or resources of the international counterpart, and active engagement of US students and early-career researchers in the RCN activities. Proposal Preparation Guidelines for EarthCube RCNs: Proposals must follow these guidelines in addition to, or in replacement of, the requirements in Section V.A A single institution must represent and coordinate all proposed activities. Collaborative Proposals are not accepted, and collaborative activities should be supported via subawards. Projects are expected to have strong management and integration plans that describe how the activity will be coordinated between partners and how the partners will function as a whole. (A) Cover Page - The title of the proposed project should begin with the words: "EarthCube RCN:" (B) Project Summary - Proposals must include a list of steering committee members and their home institutions in addition to the standard two parts of the project summary outlined in the Grant Proposal Guide ([44]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg). The project summary may not exceed one page in length. (C) Project Description - In addition to objectives, rationale, justification, research coordination activities, and Broader Impacts, the project description should address aspects of network management, coordination, and participant diversity within the 15 page project description, as described below. Please note that per guidance in the GPG, the Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities. You can decide where to include this section within the Project Description. 1) Management plan. Describe plans and procedures for the development and assessment of the proposed activity. Include formal mechanisms to ensure fair and equitable allocation of group resources. Clearly define the responsibilities for leadership and the role of the PI and the steering committee. Delineate the procedures used for the selection of initial network participants, the plans for maintaining an appropriate degree of openness and for encouraging the involvement of additional interested parties. Means for self-evaluation of progress toward the network goals should be presented as an important part of the management plan. 2) Coordination plan. Describe the plan for coordinating with other EarthCube activities. If the proposed network will work with other established network or group, or if there is a similar activity being planned or ongoing in other countries, describe the plans for coordination and cooperation among the relevant networks. 3) Increasing participant diversity. A research coordination network is an important opportunity for encouraging the involvement of a diverse group of investigators. Describe a well-designed plan to increase participation of members outside of the steering committee and core group key personnel and, if applicable, a plan to include new researchers, post-docs, graduate students and undergraduates and individuals and institutions underrepresented in the geosciences and cyberinfrastructure. (D) Budget.- Funds from this program may not support independent, individual research projects of the participants; nor are they to be used as a mechanism for a mini-grant awarding program. Note that funds requested to support activities of the network participants, such as participant travel, materials and supplies for the network projects, and network retreats should be listed as "participant support" in the proposed budget, and managed by the submitting organization. (E) Special Information and Supplementary Documents.- In replacement of the Results of Prior Support proposals must include Current Activities: PI and the steering committee members listed in the project summary must provide a single-page (per investigator) description of the relationship between the proposed project and current research activities in his/her laboratory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Amendment II appears below Amendment II DOES NOT affect the funding opportunities in Amendment I. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AMENDMENT II The objective of Amendment II is to solicit proposals in two focus areas: 1) EarthCube Building Blocks: Refining, connecting, and testing cyberinfrastructure systems appropriate for EarthCube, and 2) Conceptual Design: Development of architecture concepts and frameworks for the entire EarthCube enterprise. The Amendment is arranged as follows: (1) EarthCube Building Blocks * Description of the activity * Specific Requirements * Additional Review Criteria * Additional Proposal Preparation Guidelines (2) EarthCube Conceptual Designs * Description of the activity * Specific Requirements * Additional Review Criteria * Additional Proposal Preparation Guidelines (1) EarthCube Building Blocks Award Information: Estimated Number of Awards: 4-6 Estimated Award Size and Duration: a maximum of 24 months and total award size of $300,000 to $2,000,000. The objective of this funding opportunity is to contribute to the EarthCube enterprise by developing, integrating and utilizing current cyberinfrastructure in coordinated efforts to serve a broader segment of the academic geosciences community, in atmospheric, earth, ocean and polar science domains. This opportunity is intended to expand beyond the initial EarthCube planning and demonstration efforts represented in the Concept and Community awards that culminated in roadmaps and demonstrations in 2012. Building Blocks are cyberinfrastructure integration and development projects that have the intent and potential to broadly serve the geosciences community. EarthCube Building Blocks will provide value to the EarthCube enterprise by contributing to one or more of the following: * Increased capabilities to a broader set of geoscientists than are currently served through the integration of existing technology components; * Creation or modification of cyberinfrastructure to overcome barriers or inefficiencies as identified by the geosciences community in documents such as the GEO domain workshop reports; and * Development of essential components of an EarthCube framework that currently do not exist but are identified as required in on-going community discussion and documents such as roadmaps, domain workshop reports, and community forums. The most compelling Building Blocks will be those that best serve the needs of geoscientists in more than one domain and that closely involve geoscientists, and their recognized community organizations, in the planning, development and testing of cyberinfrastructure. Diverse participation of students and early-career researchers is essential. Successful proposals will demonstrate collaborative and community-oriented solutions, as well as innovative combinations of technology. Approaches should create groups and collaborations that are new and include early career scientists and students. Awards are expected to be no more than 24 months in duration, with demonstrations of capabilities at the end of the period. It is also important that awards demonstrate how the capability/project can work within the ecosystem of geosciences cyberinfrastructure and be extensible to the entire geosciences community. Proposals will need to describe the following: * the net value of the combined components; * the communities that will be served by the innovation; * the metrics that will be used to guide and evaluate the effort; * tests that will be performed as part of the demonstration, particularly those that show added value to geosciences research problems; and * how the planned approach can serve the needs of more than one academic geosciences discipline. EarthCube Building Blocks projects may include demonstrations of software, middleware, techniques to serve and deliver data, or other cyberinfrastructure capabilities, as well as the creation of networks or resources such as test beds, inventories or implementation of standards. Examples of possible EarthCube Building Blocks include, but are not limited to: * Projects described in community documents, such as roadmaps and EarthCube workshop reports, such as inventories of resources and simple interfaces to these inventories to the geosciences community so they may take advantage of existing infrastructure. * Modification and development of open source tools with user-interfaces that are tested with academic geosciences researchers as well as geosciences students and education professionals. * The creation of frameworks, tools and utilities that allow interoperability of existing data and modeling infrastructure. Critical cyberinfrastructure necessary for EarthCube will evolve though a step-wise set of developments. The first phase, represented by this EarthCube Building Blocks call, focuses on the most promising areas of cyber-enabled functionalities that benefit the academic geosciences community. The second phase will have the benefit of input from Test Enterprise Governance, emerging user requirements, and community planning activities. It is anticipated that through this integration effort EarthCube may identify and begin to fill missing resources or capabilities, connect data, model and visualization approaches that are needed to advance our understanding of the Earth system. The third stage will be impacted by the development of an EarthCube enterprise architecture, and may incorporate innovative technologies, and/or larger scale developments for geosciences-specific cyberinfrastructure. Specific Requirements: 1. Collaboration: EarthCube Building Blocks must involve deep engagement and participation of end-users in the academic geosciences research community in the development of resources, products or other outcomes. Because EarthCube seeks to build bridges between geoscientists and those that build cyberinfrastructure, strategies for true partnerships and useful developments are necessary for successful proposals. Proposals must address specific geosciences communities and geosciences data/modeling facilities that will be targeted and participate in project development. Similarly, proposals must identify cyberinfrastructure, computer science, industry, international and agency partners that will participate. Proposals should explicitly identify who in these communities will be engaged in the process of development and what role they play. 2. Outcomes: EarthCube Building Blocks should produce demonstrable and broadly useful outcomes within 24 months. Proposals must discuss how the effort will be demonstrated and evaluated. Proposals must clearly articulate how project outcome(s) relate to the goals of EarthCube and to specific needs articulated by scientific community documents. Particularly important will be how the proposal envisions that the approach will be extensible in the future, how the project fits within the broader EarthCube framework, and how it may be coordinated with other efforts that are developing concurrently. A discussion of the project's lifecycle/sustainability of efforts should be presented. Proposals developing new, innovative, or cutting-edge cyberinfrastructure or technology must describe how the technology will be robustly implemented for the use of geoscientists and fits within the context and operation of other existing cyberinfrastructure used by geoscientists. 3. EarthCube Participation: EarthCube Building Block awardees will be required to participate in continuing EarthCube community activities. At this stage projects are not required to provide end-to-end solutions because EarthCube is in the requirements gathering and planning stage. Projects will be required to participate in this planning as part of the collaborative spirit of EarthCube. Cooperation and coordination with Test Enterprise Governance is required. Critical responsibilities for Building Block awardees will include taking and incorporating input from geosciences community activities, such as EarthCube RCNs, and participating in the discussion of EarthCube enterprise architecture development. Proposers should describe how their anticipated structure, work plan and management plan would accommodate these responsibilities. Additional Review Criteria for Building Blocks: a. Does the proposal address a cyberinfrastructure need across multiple academic geosciences domains? Is there a plan to involve geoscientists in development and demonstration of any new capabilities? How will geoscientists use the new developments and capabilities to conduct their research? b. Does the proposal include an appropriate collaboration among geoscientists, and cyberinfrastructure and computational scientists, institutions, etc.? Does it credibly engage those geoscientists in the project? How appropriate and qualified are investigators and collaborators in representing their communities, conducting outreach, and disseminating outcomes outside their collaborators? c. How well does the proposal address community-articulated goals, concepts, and guiding principles? Are these well referenced with on-going EarthCube discussions, roadmaps and/or use cases? Does the project strongly link to and engage geosciences cyberinfrastructure facilities? d. Are the management plan and the team appropriate for the goals of the project? Does the proposal have an appropriate evaluation plan? Is there a plan to test, revise and demonstrate the proposed capability or resource? How well are metrics defined, and is the plan to meet these metrics appropriate? Is there an appropriate plan to communicate activities and results to the geosciences and EarthCube communities? e. What is the merit of the proposed cyberinfrastructure integration and/or development based on the value it will add to the geosciences? Does the proposal articulate how the project will add to EarthCube? Proposal Preparation Guidelines for Building Blocks: Proposals must follow these guidelines in addition to, or in replacement of, the requirements in Section V.A in this solicitation. A single institution must represent and coordinate all proposed activities. Collaborative Proposals are not accepted, and collaborative activities should be supported via subawards. Projects are expected to have strong management and integration plans that describe how the activity will be coordinated between partners and how the partners will function as a whole. (A) Cover Page -The title of the proposed project must begin with the words: "EarthCube Building Blocks:" (B) Project Summary - The Project Summary must begin with the title of the proposal and a list of all the collaborating institutions involved in the proposal. (C) Project Description - This section should be no longer than 15 pages, and clearly describe how the proposed work meets the specific requirements and any criteria indicated in the additional review criteria. The management plan should describe how the collaborative effort will be coordinated effectively, the roles and responsibilities of participants and communications and outreach strategies. A clear time line of expected outcomes should be included. Please note that per guidance in the GPG, the Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities. You can decide where to include this section within the Project Description. (D) Budget - Any subawards must have associated, annualized budgets with budget justifications of no more than two pages. (E) Special Information and Supplementary Documents - proposals must include as supplementary documents (1) In place of the Results of Prior Support section in the Project Description, Current Activities: the PI and members listed as co-PIs or collaborators must provide a single-page (per investigator) description of the relevant prior support. (2) Letters of Collaboration must be provided for any organization or individuals that are detailed in the Project Description and management plan but are not receiving funds in the proposal, and are therefore not listed in a budget in the proposal. The Letter of Collaboration must list the personnel participating in the project and describe the work that will be conducted for the project. Information on acceptable content of Letters of Collaboration may be found in the GPG, and must be followed. (2) EarthCube Conceptual Designs Award Information: Estimated Number of Awards: 3-5 Estimated Award Size and Duration: a maximum of 24 months and up to a maximum of $300,000. NSF solicits proposals for the initial enterprise architecture design of EarthCube. The EarthCube architecture system will be the set of structures needed to serve the data and information needs of the geosciences community. This opportunity will support architecture design teams to develop Conceptual Design Reports, due before the end of the award, for the enterprise architecture of EarthCube. Teams will be expected to interact with geoscientists and EarthCube participants to understand the scope of scientific challenges and resources in the geosciences community. EarthCube infrastructure must provide the ready exchange of data, tools, software, and other information needed for dynamic, evolving, cross-disciplinary research between geoscientists and eventually any interested researchers. The Conceptual Design Reports will provide tangible representations of design concepts in a relatively low cost form so that stakeholders can provide feedback and a process can be developed for selecting an EarthCube architecture design. Determining the overall technological architecture of EarthCube is challenging because: 1) there are many competing approaches; 2) there are significant existing and useful systems already supporting the geosciences, and 3) there is a diversity and complexity of the information about the Earth that needs to be linked in an integrated and easy-to-use system. This call represents the first phase in the development of an architecture design for EarthCube. The strategy to determine the EarthCube enterprise architecture is phased in order for 1) the development of EarthCube architecture to be guided, evaluated, and refined by end-users; 2) innovative ideas to be exposed for discussion of the conceptual framework; and 3) a stepwise process to be implemented for selection of a multi-generational architecture based on merit, feasibility, and experience-based competence. The first two anticipated phases of enterprise architecture development will be 1) Conceptual Design, which is the focus of this call, followed by 2) Design Refinement based on user requirements and assessment managed through Test Enterprise Governance, community input from workshops and EarthCube RCNs, and interaction with EarthCube Building Blocks. These phases may be followed by a selection and implementation phase when EarthCube, guided by Enterprise Governance, develops an approach and process for selection and development of enterprise architecture. This approach will likely depend upon the structure of Enterprise Governance, community input, as well as input from Conceptual Design Teams. Specific Requirements 1. EarthCube Participation: It will be necessary for awardees to participate in EarthCube planning and community activities. This includes participating in community meetings, engaging domain end-users and Test Enterprise Governance to understand requirements and current infrastructure, as well as exposing design concepts and accepting feedback. Proposals should indicate how the design team anticipates participating in these activities and what role input from the geosciences and EarthCube community will play in the development of the Conceptual Design. 2. Conceptual Design Report: The goal of these awards is the creation of a conceptual design of EarthCube enterprise architecture in the form of a report. These reports will foster discussions about whether the design meets end-user expectations and fits the scope of EarthCube. Designs must address sustainability and estimation of cost for developing the proposed design as a discussion point for what is feasible to support and implement. Reports should be produced before the end of the award to provide an opportunity to present reports and gather feedback. At the minimum, the Conceptual Design Report must identify stakeholders to which it responds, list the stakeholders' initial requirements, explain how the initial requirements will be met, and explain how changing/new requirements will be collected and met. The stakeholders minimally include geoscientists, technology providers, and funding agencies. The proposal should describe the format and presentation of the Conceptual Design Report that will be delivered. The Conceptual Design Reports will be presented to stakeholders of varying backgrounds. Thus it will be important for reports to be creative, accessible and understandable by a broad audience. 3. Flexibility: Proposals must consider and describe how the project will incorporate existing and future documents from other EarthCube activities, such as community meetings and roadmapping activities, geosciences domain workshops, and existing geosciences cyberinfrastructure and facilities. It is understood from the outset that pressing science questions and grand challenges will change over time and new science questions are often defined from past success. Thus, the design of versatile, extendable and sustainable cyberinfrastructure must accommodate changes in these science drivers. Conceptual Designs must be adaptable in order to address issues and constraints that are not currently known at this point. Additional Review Criteria for EarthCube Conceptual Designs a. How experienced and knowledgeable is the team 1) in the development of computing architectures of the scale and type necessary for EarthCube and 2) in their understanding of geosciences research and resources. Assess the team's ability to communicate and work with the geosciences community. Is the team well suited to collaborative work? b. Is the architecture concept that is proposed a feasible and reasonable approach? What is the likelihood that the proposed team and approach will lead to a concept that will meet the broad scope of EarthCube? Does the proposal address sustainability and potential building costs for the proposed design? c. How well does the proposal and the architectural approach deal with changing, and under-specified initial requirements? Is the approach to developing the architecture flexible? Proposal Preparation Guidelines for EarthCube Conceptual Design: Proposals must follow these guidelines in addition to, or in replacement of, the requirements in Section V.A in this solicitation. A single institution must represent and coordinate all proposed activities. Collaborative activities should be included in subcontracts. Projects are expected to have strong management and integration plans that describe how the activity will be coordinated between partners and how the partners will function as a whole. (A) Cover Page - The title of the proposed project should begin with the words: "EarthCube Conceptual Design:" (B) Project Summary - The Project Summary must begin with the title of the proposal and a list of all the collaborating institutions involved in the proposal. (C) Project Description - This section may be no longer than 15 pages. In addition to objectives, rationale, justification, intellectual merit and broader impacts, the project description should include a Management plan. Describe plans and procedures for the development and assessment of the proposed activity. The plan should include a list of all participating members of the collaboration, including non-funded participants, their institutions and roles in the project. Please note that per guidance in the GPG, the Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities. You can decide where to include this section within the Project Description. (D) Budget - Any subawards must have associated, annualized budgets with associated budget justifications. Budget justifications can be no longer than 2 pages. (E) Special Information and Supplementary Documents - To be included in the order specified below: (1) In place of the Results of Prior Support section in the Project Description, Current Activities: the PI and members listed as co-PIs or collaborators must provide a single-page (per investigator) description of the relevant prior support. (2) Letters of Collaboration must be provided for any organization or individuals that are mentioned in the Project Description and Management Plan but are not receiving funds (i.e., mentioned in the proposal and not listed in any of the associated budgets). Letters of Collaboration must list the personnel participating in the project and their affiliation and describe the work that the unfunded collaborator will be conducting for the project. Information on acceptable content of Letters of Collaboration may be found in the most recent NSF Grant Proposal Guide and must be followed. III. AWARD INFORMATION Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement Estimated Number of Awards: 18 Up to 18 awards total for amendments I and II. The number will be determined based on the results of the merit review process and availability of funds. Amendment I anticipates up to 7 awards, 1 for governance and up to 6 for RCNs. Amendment II anticipates up to 11 which includes up to 6 for building blocks and up to 5 for conceptual designs. Anticipated Funding Amount: $14,500,000 NSF anticipates funding for Amendment I (Test Enterprise Governance and Research Coordination Networks) to be $5,000,000 pending availability of funds. The size of awards will vary based on the scope and complexity of the funding opportunity and the projects supported under that call. Specific size and duration limitations will be articulated in Amendments to this solicitation. NSF anticipates funding for Amendment II (EarthCube Building Blocks and Conceptual Designs) to be $9,500,000 pending availability of funds. The size of awards will vary based on the scope and complexity of the funding opportunity and the projects supported under that call. Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds. This will be articulated in solicitation Amendments. IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION Organization Limit: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: * Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions. * Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities. * For-profit organizations: U.S. commercial organizations, especially small businesses with strong capabilities in scientific or engineering research or education. * Other Federal Agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): Contact the appropriate program before preparing a proposal for submission. PI Limit: None Specified Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: None Specified Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: An individual may be listed as PI or co-PI on the cover page of only one EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance proposal. There is no limit on the number of proposals from a PI or co-PI for the EarthCube RCN call, The EarthCube Building Blocks call and the EarthCube Conceptual Designs call. PIs or co-PIs on EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance proposals may submit to the EarthCube RCN call, the EarthCube Building Blocks call and the EarthCube Conceptual Designs call. Additional Eligibility Info: Proposals involving non-NSF FFRDC or Federal agency personnel must be approved prior to submission to ensure appropriate submission parameters related to funding personnel at these institutions. PIs should contact the cognizant PO. In all cases non-NSF FFRDC or Federal agency contributors must appear in one of two ways: (1) a subaward on a proposal submitted by an academic or non-profit institution of (2) a proposal that is submitted as part of a collaborative effort lead by an academic or non-profit institution. NSF-funded FFRDCs are exempt from the above restriction and may submit proposals without restriction. Please, be aware that if you have not received NSF funding you will be required to submit additional information before an award can be recommended. Please refer to the Prospective New Awardee Guide for information and preparation of the necessary documentation: [45]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pnag. 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: [46]http://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 [47]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: ([48]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgo vguide). 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 [49]nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will check for required sections of the proposal, in accordance with Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) instructions described in Chapter II.C.2. The GPG requires submission of: Project Summary; Project Description; References Cited; Biographical Sketch(es); Budget; Budget Justification; Current and Pending Support; Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources; Data Management Plan; and Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, if applicable. If a required section is missing, FastLane will not accept the proposal. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions. If the solicitation instructions do not require a GPG-required section to be included in the proposal, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation." Doing so will enable FastLane to accept your proposal. The following Proposal Preparation instructions should be followed for all proposals, except where an Amendment in Section II of the solicitation notes proposal preparation guidelines. In that case, proposers must follow any instructions provided in the Amendment. A single institution must represent and coordinate all proposed activities. Collaborative Proposals are not accepted, and collaborative activities should be supported via subawards. Projects are expected to have strong management and integration plans that describe how the activity will be coordinated between partners and how the partners will function as a whole. a. Cover Sheet The Cover Sheet must conform to the guidelines described in the GPG, unless modifications are described in the Amendment. b. Project Summary The Project Summary must conform to the guidelines described in the GPG unless modifications are described in the Amendment. c. Project Description Results from Prior NSF Support Results of Prior Support should be no more than one page per team member and DO NOT need to be included in the Project Description. Instead, they should be included at Supplementary Documents as described below. Refer to the GPG for instructions on the content of the Results from Prior Support. Other components of the Project Description must conform to the guidelines described in the GPG unless modifications are described in the Amendment. d. References Cited Reference information is required. Any Publication that includes any of the team collaborators should have an asterisk as the first character of the reference. e. Biographical Sketch(es) For all key personnel, please provide a brief biographical sketch. Do not exceed two pages per person for the sketch. Up to five publications most closely related to the proposal and up to five other significant publications may be listed, including those accepted for publication or citations for cyberinfrastructure resources developed by the personnel Biographical Sketches must conform to the guidelines described in the GPG. A biographical sketch (limited to two pages) is required for each individual identified as senior project personnel. (See GPG Exhibit II-7 for the definitions of Senior Personnel.) f. Budget Each proposal must contain a budget for each year of support requested. The amounts requested for each budget line item should be documented and justified in the budget justification. Subawards (Line G5 on the Proposal Budget) Since all proposals to EarthCube funding opportunities must be submitted by a single, lead institution, budgets for all other institutions and collaborating personnel must be submitted as subcontracts. A separate, yearly budget should be provided for each subawardee with a description of the work to be performed. All other Budget components must conform to the guidelines described in the GPG unless modifications are described in the Amendment. g. Current and Pending Support The Current and Pending Support must conform to the guidelines described in the GPG unless modifications are described in the Amendment. It is important to identify the number of salary-months covered by each source and whether these are summer, academic or calendar months. h. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources The Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources must conform to the guidelines described in the GPG unless modifications are described in the Amendment. i. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation * Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan. The Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan must conform to the guidelines described in the GPG unless modifications are described in the Amendment. * Data Management Plan: Plans for data management and sharing of the products of must conform to the guidelines described in the GPG unless modifications are described in the Amendment. * Results of prior support: 1 page per team member, as described below (these pages are in addition to the 20 pages for Proposed Activities) A maximum of one page per team member (PI, coPI, post doc, collaborator) should be included in the supplementary documents. Any researcher who has received prior support from any NSF grant must include results of prior support. If a collaborator has not had prior support, an explicit statement should be included to that effect in this section. j. Additional Single Copy Documents Proposals that do not provide the following information will be returned without review. (a) Project Personnel (text-searchable PDF, in FastLane, under Additional Single Copy Documents). List all Senior Personnel in the project. For each person, provide the last name, first name, and institution/organization. In the main body of the proposal, a corresponding biographical sketch should be provided for all individuals included on this list, as instructed in Section II.C.2.f of the Grant Proposal Guide. (b) Collaborators/Individuals with Conflicts of Interest (text-searchable PDF, in FastLane, under Additional Single Copy Documents). Provide a list, in an alphabetized table, of the full names and institutional affiliations of all persons with potential conflicts of interest as specified in NSF's Grant Proposal Guide. For each PI, Co-PI, collaborator and other Senior Personnel, include all co-authors/editors and collaborators (within the past 48 months), all graduate advisors and advisees, and any other individuals or institutions with which the investigator has financial ties (please specify type). In addition, list all subawardees who would receive funds through the award. k. Additional Required Documents "List of Personnel, Collaborators and Affiliates": After receipt of the proposal number from FastLane, send an e-mail to [50]earthcube@nsf.gov. The subject heading of the e-mail should note the proposal number and the lead institution. Attach the document described below, prepared on a template that will be available at [51]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube. NSF personnel will use automated data handling of this document. To facilitate this, the file should be in the CSV "flat text" format, with unformatted data entry under the column headings (Proposal Number, PI or SP Last_Name, etc.) in the template. Carriage returns, splitting items over multiple cells, extra spaces, etc., will interfere with automated handling. The document is a spreadsheet containing two lists: one (columns C-E) lists the last names, first names and institutional affiliations of all PIs, Co-PIs, and other senior personnel; the second (columns F-H) lists the full names and institutional affiliations of all people having conflicts of interest with any PIs, Co-PIs, and other senior personnel. This list will be used by NSF to check for conflicts of interest in assembling the review community. The file name should be the seven-digit proposal number --not the temporary proposal number used during proposal preparation) followed by the three characters "coi" (for example, for a proposal number 1212345, this file name will be 1212345coi.csv. The extension csv will be automatically added by Excel when saving the file using the CSV format). The 7-digit proposal number should appear in every row of the file, in column B, as indicated by the sample that will be available at [52]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube. Each project participant in columns C-E should be listed (repeatedly) in all rows that name his/her conflicted individuals in columns F-H, as in the sample. (There is redundancy between the Additional Single Copy Documents, which become part of the FastLane proposal file, and Electronic Document (a), which is used for automated data handling. At present, it is not technically possible for one document to perform both functions.) B. Budgetary Information Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited C. Due Dates * Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time): March 26, 2013 EarthCube Test Enterprise Governance March 26, 2013 EarthCube Research Coordination Networks May 22, 2013 arthCube Building Blocks May 22, 2013 EarthCube Conceptual Designs 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: [53]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 [54]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 [55]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: [56]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: [57]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: [58]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 for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as [59]Exhibit III-1. A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: [60]http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/meritreview/. Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in [61]Empowering the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation: NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016. 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 core strategies 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 provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the variety of learning perspectives. Another core strategy in support of NSF's mission is broadening opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports. A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects. 1. Merit Review Principles These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply: * All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge. * NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified. * Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project. With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent. 2. Merit Review Criteria All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. ([62]GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i. contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal.) Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including [63]GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a proposal. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria: * Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and * Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria: 1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and b. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)? 2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? 3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success? 4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities? 5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities? Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education. Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate. Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria Additional Review Criteria for EarthCube funding opportunities will be detailed in the Amendment in Section II. B. Review and Selection Process Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, or Internal NSF Review. Specific additional review criteria will vary depending on the funding opportunity and will be articulated for each funding opportunity in the Amendment section of this solicitation. 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 [64]http://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 [65]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 [66]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag. Special Award Conditions: Any Special Award Conditions will be described in the Amendment in Section II. 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 prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). Within 90 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public. Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data. PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI. More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at [67]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag. 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: * Barbara Ransom, Directorate for Geosciences, telephone: (703) 292-7792, email: [68]bransom@nsf.gov * Eva Zanzerkia, Directorate for Geosciences, telephone: (703) 292-4734, email: [69]ezanzerk@nsf.gov * Irene D. Lombardo, Office of Cyberinfrastructure, telephone: (703) 292-7098, email: [70]ilombard@nsf.gov For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact: * FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: [71]fastlane@nsf.gov. For questions relating to Grants.gov contact: * Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [72]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 [73]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 [74]http://www.grants.gov. ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering." NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research. NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals. The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339. The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111. The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at [75]http://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: [76]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, [77]NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and [78]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 [79]Policies and Important Links | [80]Privacy | [81]FOIA | [82]Help | [83]Contact NSF | [84]Contact Web Master | [85]SiteMap National Science Foundation The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 | TDD: (800) 281-8749 Last Updated: 11/07/06 [86]Text Only [x.gif] References 1. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#toc 2. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13001 3. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13001 4. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13001 5. http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/meritreviewcriteria.pdf 6. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_sigchanges.jsp 7. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/aag_sigchanges.jsp 8. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_index.jsp 9. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/ 10. mailto:bransom@nsf.gov 11. mailto:ezanzerk@nsf.gov 12. mailto:ilombard@nsf.gov 13. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg 14. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide 15. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#summary 16. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#pgm_intr_txt 17. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#pgm_desc_txt 18. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#awd_info 19. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#elig 20. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#prep 21. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#prep 22. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#budg_cst_shr_txt 23. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#dates 24. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#fastlane 25. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#review 26. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#reviewcrit 27. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#reviewprot 28. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#awardadmin 29. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#awardnotify 30. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#grantcond 31. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#reportreq 32. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#cont 33. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13529/nsf13529.htm#othpgm 34. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/acgeo/geovision/geo_strategic_plans_2012.pdf 35. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504730 36. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/ 37. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/docs/EarthCubeGovernanceFramework.pdf 38. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/docs/EarthCubeGovernanceRoadmap.pdf 39. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/docs/EarthCubeGovernanceRoadmap.pdf 40. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/docs/EarthCubeGovernanceFramework.pdf 41. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/docs/EarthCubeGovernanceFramework.pdf 42. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=11691 43. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/ 44. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg 45. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pnag 46. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg 47. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov 48. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide 49. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov 50. mailto:earthcube@nsf.gov 51. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube 52. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube 53. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm 54. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov 55. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC 56. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp 57. http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp 58. mailto:support@grants.gov 59. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_3ex1.pdf 60. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/meritreview/ 61. http://www.nsf.gov/news/strategicplan/nsfstrategicplan_2011_2016.pdf 62. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di 63. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di 64. http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF 65. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov 66. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag 67. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag 68. mailto:bransom@nsf.gov 69. mailto:ezanzerk@nsf.gov 70. mailto:ilombard@nsf.gov 71. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov 72. mailto:support@grants.gov 73. http://www.nsf.gov/ 74. http://www.grants.gov/ 75. http://www.nsf.gov/ 76. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov 77. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/ SOR_PA_NSF-50_Principal_Investigator_Proposal_File.pdf 78. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/ SOR_PA_NSF-51_Reviewer_Proposal_File.pdf 79. http://www.nsf.gov/policies 80. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/privacy.jsp 81. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/foia.jsp 82. http://www.nsf.gov/help/ 83. http://www.nsf.gov/help/contact.jsp 84. mailto:webmaster@nsf.gov 85. http://www.nsf.gov/help/sitemap.jsp 86. http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/referrer