This document has been archived and replaced by NSF 14-593.

CISE Research Infrastructure (CRI)

Program Solicitation
NSF 13-585

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 11-536

NSF Logo

National Science Foundation

Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering
     Division of Computer and Network Systems
     Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
     Division of Information & Intelligent Systems

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

     November 04, 2013

     October 07, 2014

     First Tuesday in October, Annually Thereafter

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES

Revision Notes:

The following revisions have been made:

1. Removed the word Computing from the program name; now simply CISE Research Infrastructure;

2. Changed the due date;

3. Simplified the CI award categories by removing the Acquisition, Development, Deployment and Operations (ADDO) designation (though the program will continue to support these activities);

4. Included more specific wording to emphasize the role of CISE researchers and CISE core research focus in projects;

5. Added language to emphasize the importance of a research focus to all projects;

6. Modified the additional review criteria to match the program description; and

7. Provided more information about related funding opportunities.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

CISE Research Infrastructure (CRI)

Synopsis of Program:

The CISE Research Infrastructure (CRI) program drives discovery and learning in the core CISE disciplines of the three participating CISE divisions by supporting the creation and enhancement of world-class computing research infrastructure. This infrastructure will enable CISE researchers to advance the frontiers of CISE research. Further, through the CRI program CISE seeks to ensure that individuals from a diverse range of academic institutions, including minority-serving and predominantly undergraduate institutions, have access to such infrastructure.

The CRI program supports two classes of awards:

  • Institutional Infrastructure (II) awards support the creation of new (II-New) CISE research infrastructure or the enhancement (II-EN) of existing CISE research infrastructure to enable world-class CISE research opportunities at the awardee and collaborating institutions.
  • Community Infrastructure (CI) awards support the planning (CI-P) for new CISE community research infrastructure, the creation of new (CI-New) CISE research infrastructure or the enhancement (CI-EN) of existing CISE infrastructure to enable world-class CISE research opportunities for broad-based communities of CISE researchers that extend well beyond the awardee institutions. Each CI award may support the operation of such infrastructure, ensuring that the awardee institution(s) is (are) well-positioned to provide a high quality of service to CISE community researchers expected to use the infrastructure to realize their research goals.

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.

  • Harriet G. Taylor, Lead Program Director, CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: htaylor@nsf.gov

  • Mimi McClure, Program Director, ACI, 1145, telephone: (703) 292-5197, email: mmcclure@nsf.gov

  • Sankar Basu, Program Director, CCF, 1115, telephone: (703) 292-7843, email: sabasu@nsf.gov

  • Kevin Crowston, Program Director, IIS, 1125, telephone: (703) 292-5311, email: kcrowsto@nsf.gov

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

  • 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 25 to 30

With up to 20 Institutional Infrastructure (II) awards and 10 Community Infrastructure (CI) awards in each competition. The majority of the Institutional Infrastructure (II) awards will be made in the $200,000 - $750,000 range. However, a small number of II awards may be made in the $750,000 - $1,000,000 range. The majority of the Community Infrastructure (CI) awards will be made in the $500,000 - $1,000,000 range. However, a very small number of CI awards may be made in the $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 range. The majority of the Community Infrastructure Planning (CI-P) awards will be made in the $50,000 - $100,000 range.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $18,000,000 annually, subject to the availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

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

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2

In each annual competition, an individual may participate in at most two proposals as PI, Co-PI, or Senior Personnel.

These eligibility constraints will be strictly enforced in order to treat everyone fairly and consistently. In the event that an individual exceeds this limit, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on earliest date and time of proposal submission (i.e., the first two proposals received will be accepted and the remainder will be returned without review). No exceptions will be made.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

  • Letters of Intent: Not required
  • Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
  • Full Proposals:
    • Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: 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: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide).

B. Budgetary Information

  • Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
  • Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable
  • Other Budgetary Limitations: Not Applicable

C. Due Dates

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

         November 04, 2013

         October 07, 2014

         First Tuesday in October, Annually Thereafter

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: Standard NSF award conditions apply.

Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary of Program Requirements

  1. Introduction

  2. Program Description

  3. Award Information

  4. Eligibility Information

  5. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
    1. Proposal Preparation Instructions
    2. Budgetary Information
    3. Due Dates
    4. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

  6. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
    1. Merit Review Principles and Criteria
    2. Review and Selection Process

  7. Award Administration Information
    1. Notification of the Award
    2. Award Conditions
    3. Reporting Requirements

  8. Agency Contacts

  9. Other Information

I. INTRODUCTION

Since its inception, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has supported the development of research infrastructure in order to advance the frontiers of science and engineering. These research infrastructure investments enable an academic science and engineering research enterprise that continues to be among the world's best. Similarly, NSF's Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) has a tradition of supporting CISE research infrastructure to enable transformative research at the frontiers of core CISE research disciplines and to provide unique opportunities for current and future generations of CISE researchers. The CISE Research Infrastructure (CRI) program draws on the rapidly evolving nature of the CISE disciplines and the unique infrastructure needs of CISE researchers to explore and extend the boundaries of CISE research frontiers.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

With its CISE Research Infrastructure (CRI) program, CISE drives discovery and learning in the core CISE disciplines covered by the three participating CISE divisions through support for the creation and enhancement of world-class computing research infrastructure. Further, through the CRI program CISE seeks to ensure that individuals from a diverse range of academic institutions, including minority-serving and predominantly undergraduate institutions, have access to such infrastructure.

Examples of research infrastructure of interest to the program include, but are not limited to: systems of security and monitoring devices, linguistically annotated electronic language and vision corpora, spectrum and protocol analyzers, system testbeds, suites of robots, clusters of graphic processing units, software libraries and tools, networks of wireless and mobile devices, programmable network components, motion capture systems, Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)-based systems, data clusters, integrated systems of sensors, data repositories and visualization capabilities. These computing infrastructure resources (and others not listed here) are expected to enable unique and compelling research opportunities otherwise inaccessible to the core CISE research community.

Cognizant of the diversity of research infrastructure needs in the CISE research community, the CRI program supports two classes of projects as defined below.

  • Institutional Infrastructure

Each Institutional Infrastructure (II) award supports the creation of new (II-New) CISE research infrastructure or the enhancement (II-EN) of existing CISE research infrastructure. The proposed research infrastructure must enable compelling new research opportunities for the proposing PI or team of PIs and associated students and collaborators (i.e., for individuals at the awardee and collaborating institutions). II proposals involving multiple investigators from one or more departments and/or institutions are welcome. Projects must include substantial involvement of CISE researchers and enable projects with a clear research focus related to the core CISE disciplines. II proposals that are led by or include 2-year, predominantly undergraduate, and/or minority-serving institutions are especially encouraged. II proposals may request up to $1 million total for project durations not to exceed 3 years.

  • Community Infrastructure

Each Community Infrastructure (CI) award supports the planning (CI-P) for CISE community research infrastructure, the creation of new (CI-New) CISE research infrastructure or the enhancement (CI-EN) of existing CISE research infrastructure in order to provide compelling new research opportunities for a broad-based community of CISE researchers that extends well beyond the awardee institution(s). Furthermore, each CI award may support the operation of such infrastructure, ensuring that the awardee institution(s) is well-positioned to provide a high quality of service to CISE community researchers expected to use the infrastructure to realize their research goals. Projects must include substantial involvement of CISE researchers and enable a focused research agenda related to the core CISE disciplines. CI proposals must provide compelling evidence that a diverse community of investigators will find the proposed infrastructure valuable to their research endeavors.

Support for CI projects is provided in two award categories:

  • CI Planning (CI-P): Will fund grants of up to $100,000 for durations of up to 1 year to prepare for the submission of a CI-NEW or CI-EN proposal; and
  • Community Infrastructure: Will fund two types of grants - New (CI-New) and Enhancement (CI-EN) - of up to $3 million for durations of up to 3 years to either create new CISE research infrastructure or enhance existing CISE research infrastructure, respectively. NSF will provide no more than $250,000 per year for operating the infrastructure.

The receipt of a CI-P grant does not guarantee support for a subsequent CI-New or CI-EN proposal. Organizations may submit CI-New and CI-EN proposals without having received CI-P grants.

Projects that involve enhancements of either institutional or community infrastructure must show clear evidence of:

  • Success of the initial implementation;
  • Usage by a diverse population of CISE researchers;
  • Need for and benefits of the enhancement; and
  • CISE community support for the enhancement.

Successful CISE Research Infrastructure projects often:

  • Provide infrastructure that enables research with a clear intellectual focus that is related to CISE core disciplines that the three participating CISE divisions support. A clear research agenda that is enabled by the implementation of the infrastructure is the central element of CRI projects. While educational benefits and outreach to a diverse group of researchers are also desirable elements of successful projects, projects that do not enable CISE disciplinary research are not responsive to the CRI solicitation.
  • Involve participation by a group of CISE-focused researchers and leadership by CISE discipline researchers. Projects may enable other faculty and interdisciplinary groups, but clear CISE participation, involvement, and interest in the research is essential.
  • Enable innovative CISE research that is not possible without the infrastructure and that support emerging CISE research frontiers.

The CISE Research Infrastructure program is a special program offered by the CISE Directorate to focus on the unique infrastructure needs of CISE disciplinary researchers. CRI is about enabling change and transformative research in CISE core disciplines. CRI does not typically support upgrades of university computing facilities or infrastructure for groups that are primarily made up of non-CISE researchers. Researchers in other disciplines, particularly those employing computing and computational science approaches in their research, might look to possible infrastructure programs in their related NSF Directorate for possible support. Other NSF infrastructure programs that might be appropriate include: Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), as well as infrastructure programs offered by CISE's Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (ACI) such as Data Infrastructure Building Blocks (DIBBs), Campus Cyberinfrastructure - Network Infrastructure and Engineering Program (CC-NIE), and Software Infrastructure for Sustained Innovation (SI2).

III. AWARD INFORMATION

NSF expects to make the following types of award(s): Standard or Continuing Grants. Up to 20 Institutional Infrastructure (II) awards and 10 Community Infrastructure (CI) awards in each competition. The majority of the Institutional Infrastructure (II) awards will be made in the $200,000 - $750,000 range. However, a small number of II awards may be made in the $750,000 - $1,000,000 range. The majority of the Community Infrastructure (CI) awards will be made in the $500,000 - $1,000,000 range. However, a very small number of CI awards may be made in the $1,000,000 - $3,000,000 range. The majority of the Community Infrastructure Planning (CI-P) awards will be made in the $50,000 - $100,000 range.

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

Who May Submit Proposals:

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

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2

In each annual competition, an individual may participate in at most two proposals as PI, Co-PI, or Senior Personnel.

These eligibility constraints will be strictly enforced in order to treat everyone fairly and consistently. In the event that an individual exceeds this limit, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on earliest date and time of proposal submission (i.e., the first two proposals received will be accepted and the remainder will be returned without review). No exceptions will be made.

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: 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 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: (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

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

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will check for required sections of the full 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.

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. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, you can decide where to include this section within the Project Description.

The following information SUPPLEMENTS (not replaces) the guidelines provided in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.

Proposal Titles: Proposal titles must begin with an acronym that indicates the type of CRI proposal being submitted. Select an acronym from the following list:

II-New: Institutional Infrastructure proposals requesting support for new CISE research infrastructure;

II-EN: Institutional Infrastructure proposals requesting support to enhance existing CISE research infrastructure;

CI-P: Community Infrastructure Planning proposals requesting support to prepare for future Community Infrastructure NEW (CI-NEW) or Community Enhancement (CI-EN) proposals;

CI-New: Community Infrastructure proposals requesting support to create NEW CISE research infrastructure; or

CI-EN: Community Infrastructure Enhancement proposals requesting support to enhance existing CISE research infrastructure.

The acronym should be followed with a colon, then the title of your project. For example, if you are submitting a proposal to enhance existing institutional infrastructure, then your title would be II-EN: Title.

Project Summary: The Project Summary consists of an overview, a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity.

Please provide 3-5 high-level keyword descriptors for the project at the end of the overview in the Project Summary. Include descriptors of the CISE disciplinary research that the infrastructure enables. You may also include a basic descriptor of the type of infrastructure. CISE personnel will use this information in implementing the merit review process. Keywords should be prefaced with "Keywords" followed by a colon and each keyword should be separated by semi-colons.

Project Description: The preparation instructions for Institutional Infrastructure and Community Infrastructure proposals are different. PIs are encouraged to read the following instructions carefully when preparing their proposals.

Institutional Infrastructure (II) Proposals:

Within the 15 pages allocated for the Project Description, describe the

  • Proposed CISE research infrastructure and its estimated lifetime, noting whether it is new infrastructure to be created or existing infrastructure to be enhanced;
  • Compelling new CISE research opportunities that will result from the availability of the proposed infrastructure;
  • Researchers, educators, and students (including affiliated institutions) who will benefit from the proposed infrastructure creation or enhancement, including the synergies in their interests;
  • CISE disciplines that will benefit from the infrastructure and CISE-centric research groups within the participating institutions that will use the infrastructure;
  • Samples of focused research projects or agendas that the infrastructure will enable. The novelty and innovative aspects must be evident along with clear evidence that the proposed infrastructure is essential to moving CISE research frontiers forward;
  • Awardee institution(s) commitment to operating and maintaining the infrastructure for its estimated useful life; and
  • Detailed project management plan, with timeline, to create and deploy the new or enhance the existing research infrastructure.

If the proposed activity is for the enhancement of existing infrastructure (II-EN), in addition to describing the new research and education opportunities afforded by the proposed enhancement, also provide evidence of:

  • Prior research and education contributions the infrastructure enabled and the researchers, educators and students it served. Evidence of prior contributions may include innovative research results, refereed publications and theses that used the infrastructure (identifying those without co-authors from the proposing institutions), use by courses, courseware developed, software tool development, dissemination and use statistics (e.g., numbers of users, citations, etc.), technology transfer, and other government or industry support, etc.;
  • Outreach to a diverse population of researchers;
  • Community satisfaction with the resource and community support for the proposed enhancement; and
  • Institutional plans to provide long-term sustainability of the infrastructure.

Community Infrastructure (CI) Proposals:

For CI Planning (CI-P) proposals, within the 15 pages allocated for the Project Description, describe the:

  • Research infrastructure envisioned, whether it is new infrastructure to be created or existing infrastructure to be enhanced along with the rational and need for the infrastructure;
  • Communities that will use the proposed NEW infrastructure or that have used the existing infrastructure;
  • Compelling new CISE research opportunities enabled by the infrastructure;
  • CISE sub-disciplines that will benefit from the infrastructure and CISE-centric research groups that will use the infrastructure;
  • Planning activities and timeline, including ways in which the related CISE research community will be involved in the design and creation of the infrastructure;
  • Clear identification of individuals involved in the planning process and associated community interactions;
  • Evidence that the new or enhanced infrastructure has community support and that any planned extensions meet the needs of the community. Planning proposals for future CI-EN projects should include evidence that the current infrastructure that is to be enhanced has been used by CISE research communities and that these communities now desire the extensions envisioned; and
  • Indications of plans for a future CI-NEW or CI-EN proposal. The timeline and activities should be clearly arranged to align with future CRI submission dates and criteria.

For CI-New or CI-EN proposals, within the 15 pages allocated for the Project Description, describe the:

  • Proposed CISE research infrastructure and its estimated lifetime, noting whether it is new infrastructure to be created and operated or existing infrastructure to be enhanced and operated;
  • Compelling new CISE research opportunities enabled by the proposed infrastructure. Describe the steps taken to identify the research opportunities enabled by the infrastructure and provide evidence that a diverse community of users plan to use the capabilities provided;
  • CISE sub-disciplines that will benefit from the infrastructure and CISE-centric research groups within the participating institutions that will use the infrastructure;
  • Samples of focused research projects or agendas that the infrastructure will enable. The novelty and innovative aspects of the research must be evident along with clear evidence that the proposed infrastructure is essential to moving CISE research frontiers forward;
  • Quality of service commitment to the relevant CISE research community;
  • Means by which user satisfaction will be evaluated and used to refine and improve subsequent infrastructure operations;
  • Plans for outreach to ensure that a broad community of users is engaged;
  • Qualifications of the PIs and the project team to manage the creation or enhancement and operations of the research infrastructure in support of its users; and
  • Detailed project management plan, including a timeline, that outlines all steps to be undertaken to acquire, develop, and/or operate the research infrastructure, and identify the parties responsible for each major task.

If the proposed activity is for the enhancement of existing infrastructure (CI-EN), in addition to describing the new research and education opportunities afforded by the proposed enhancement also provide evidence of:

  • Prior research and education contributions the infrastructure enabled and the researchers, educators and students it served. Evidence of prior contributions may include innovative research results, refereed publications and theses that used the infrastructure (identifying those without co-authors from the proposing institutions), use by courses, courseware developed, software tool development, dissemination and use statistics (e.g., numbers of users, citations, etc.), technology transfer, and other government or industry support, etc.;
  • Outreach to a diverse population of researchers;
  • Community satisfaction with the resource and community support for the proposed enhancement; and
  • Community plans to provide long-term sustainability of the infrastructure.

If the proposed infrastructure is related to previously NSF-funded infrastructure, describe the extent to which the previously funded infrastructure will be integrated with the new infrastructure. Describe how funds remaining from earlier NSF grants for related infrastructure will be integrated with the requested award.

CI proposals should also include a well-reasoned budget justification that clearly distinguishes the costs to 1. acquire, develop and deploy the new or enhanced infrastructure; and 2. operate the proposed infrastructure. (Note that NSF will support operations at levels not to exceed $250,000 each year.)

Supplementary Documents:

In the Supplementary Documents Section, upload the following information where relevant:

(1) List of Project Personnel and Partner Institutions (Note: In collaborative proposals, only the lead institution should provide this information):

Provide current, accurate information for all personnel and institutions involved in the project. NSF staff will use this information in the merit review process to manage conflicts of interest. The list should include all PIs, Co-PIs, Senior Personnel, paid/unpaid Consultants or Collaborators, Subawardees, Postdocs, and project-level advisory committee members. This list should be numbered and include (in this order) Full name, Organization(s), and Role in the project, with each item separated by a semi-colon. Each person listed should start a new numbered line. For example:

1. Mary Smith; XYZ University; PI

2. John Jones; University of PQR; Senior Personnel

3. Jane Brown; XYZ University; Postdoc

4. Bob Adams; ABC Inc.; Paid Consultant

5. Mary White; Welldone Institution; Unpaid Collaborator

6. Tim Green; ZZZ University; Subawardee

(2) A list of Collaborators (Note: In collaborative proposals, only the lead institution should provide this information):

Provide current, accurate information for all active or recent collaborators of personnel and institutions involved in the project. NSF staff will use this information in the merit review process to manage conflicts of interest. This list -- distinct from (1) above -- must include all active or recent Collaborators of all personnel involved with the proposed project. Collaborators include any individual with whom any member of the project team -- including PIs, Co-PIs, Senior Personnel, paid/unpaid Consultants or Collaborators, Subawardees, Postdocs, and project-level advisory committee members -- has collaborated on a project, book, article, report, or paper within the preceding 48 months; or co-edited a journal, compendium, or conference proceedings within the preceding 24 months. This list should be numbered and include (in this order) Full name and Organization(s), with each item separated by a semi-colon. Each person listed should start a new numbered line.

1. Mary Smith; XYZ University

2. John Jones; University of PQR

3. Jane Brown; XYZ University

4. Bob Adams; ABC Inc.

5. Mary White; Welldone Institution

6. Tim Green; ZZZ University

(3) Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan (if applicable):

Each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. In no more than one page, the mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral researchers supported by the project, irrespective of whether they reside at the submitting organization, any subawardee organization, or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted collaborative project. Please be advised that if required, FastLane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing a Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan. See Chapter II.C.2.j (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2j) of the GPG for further information about the implementation of this requirement.

Proposals that include Postdoctoral Mentoring Plans exceeding one page in length will be returned without review.

(4) Data Management Plan (required):

Proposals must include a supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled "Data Management Plan." This supplementary document should describe how the proposal will conform to NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of research results.

See Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter II.C.2.j for full policy implementation.

For additional information see: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp.

For specific guidance for proposals submitted to the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) see: http://www.nsf.gov/cise/cise_dmp.jsp.

Proposals that include Data Management Plans exceeding two pages in length will be returned without review.

(5) Documentation of Collaborative Arrangements of Significance to the Proposal Through Letters of Commitment:

Any substantial collaboration with individuals not included in the budget should be described and documented with a letter from each collaborator, which should be provided in the supplementary documentation section. Letters of commitment that promise access to facilities or resources (such as data sets or databases) should also be provided.

(6) Other Specialized Information:

RUI Proposals: PIs from predominantly undergraduate institutions should include a Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Impact Statement and Certification of RUI Eligibility in this Section.

GOALI proposals: PIs submitting GOALI proposals should include industry-university agreement letters on intellectual property in this section.

(7) No other supplementary documents, except as permitted by the Grant Proposal Guide, are allowed. In particular, other letters of support not included in (5) above should not be submitted as they are not a standard component of an NSF proposal.

The following table is a synopsis of the above:

CRI Project Type

Maximum Funding

Operation Max

Expectations

Characteristics

Institutional Infrastructure - New (II-New)

$1M

N/A

Document the need for the new infrastructure in light of existing infrastructure available within and outside the participating institution (s).

Demonstrate CISE research community support within the participating institutions.

Show how the infrastructure will enable innovative CISE disciplinary research.

Infrastructure primarily benefits research communities at the institutions of the PI or collaborative PIs.

Infrastructure enables compelling research for CISE researchers that may extend the frontiers of the core CISE disciplines.

Institutional Infrastructure - Enhancement  (II-EN)

$1M

N/A

Document the need and support for the enhancement within the institution's communities.

Demonstrate the success of the initial implementation.

Demonstrate CISE research community support within the participating institutions.

Show how the infrastructure will enable innovative CISE disciplinary research.

Same as above

Community Infrastructure - Planning (CI-P)

$100K

N/A

Specify a concrete planning strategy, timeline, and set of activities for developing a future full CRI proposal.

Describe a vision for the infrastructure, including possible new research opportunities that could be realized.

Justify the need for the infrastructure as well as CISE community support for the infrastructure.

Show how CISE researchers will be involved in the planning as well as future development activities.

Infrastructure benefits a broad-based community of CISE researchers that extends well beyond awardee institutions.

Proposal includes outreach to communities and commitment to high-quality service.

Infrastructure enables compelling research for CISE researchers that may extend the frontiers of the core CISE disciplines.

Community Infrastructure - New (CI-New)

$3M

$250K

Document the need for the new infrastructure in light of existing infrastructure available to the relevant CISE research communities.

Demonstrate CISE research community support within the participating institutions.

Show how the infrastructure will enable innovative CISE disciplinary research.

Same as above

Community Infrastructure - Enhancement (CI-EN)

$3M

$250K

Document the need, and support for, the enhancement within the relevant communities.

Demonstrate the success of the initial implementation.

Document support from, and use by, the CISE research community beyond participating institutions.

Show how the infrastructure will enable innovative CISE disciplinary research.

Same as above

 

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Budget Preparation Instructions:

The CRI program funds the development and implementation of CISE-centric research infrastructure.  CRI does not fund the associated research that is subsequently enabled by the infrastructure. Typically CRI provides at most modest funds for faculty directly related to faculty involvement in the development and implementation of the infrastructure. Likewise CRI only supports funds for graduate students and other technical support essential to the development of the infrastructure. Modest operational funds may be included for community infrastructure. Universities must assume operational costs for institutional infrastructure and demonstrate a clear commitment and plan to maintain and operate the infrastructure after the end of the CRI funding.

For II and CI projects, the CRI program supports:

  • The acquisition and/or development of new software tools, equipment, testbeds, resources, platforms, etc.;
  • The enhancement (through acquisition and/or development) of existing software tools, equipment, testbeds, resources, platforms, etc.;
  • Travel expenses necessary for coordination of multi-institutional projects;
  • Technical personnel essential to the successful design, acquisition, development, and deployment of the proposed research infrastructure; and
  • Postdocs, graduate and/or undergraduate students to participate in the design, acquisition and/or development of the proposed research infrastructure.

For CI projects ONLY, CRI supports:

  • Professional staff critical to the operation of the infrastructure, including providing effective user support;
  • Postdocs, graduate and/or undergraduate students to participate in the operation and assessment of the infrastructure as long as these activities do not constitute research;
  • Outreach and participation activities like workshops or training activities that broaden participation and prepare researchers, educators and students to use the proposed infrastructure effectively; and
  • Assessment activities that evaluate project outcomes.

The CRI program will not provide support for the following items:

  • General-purpose personal computing equipment, office equipment, software, databases, etc.;
  • Individual research enabled by the infrastructure; or
  • Travel to present research results.

C. Due Dates

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

         November 04, 2013

         October 07, 2014

         First Tuesday in October, Annually Thereafter

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

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

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

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

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

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

VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in 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. (GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i. contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal.) Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Within the context of the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria, reviewers will be asked to consider the following issues when preparing their reviews:

For Institutional Infrastructure (II) proposals:

  • Does the proposal provide convincing evidence that the proposed infrastructure will result in compelling new CISE research and education opportunities?
  • How well does the proposed research focus fit with CISE core disciplines? Are CISE researchers involved in an integral way, particularly in leadership positions?
  • Does the proposal provide plans for use by a diverse group of researchers?
  • Does the proposing institution(s) provide a convincing case of their commitment to maintain and operate the infrastructure for its useful life?
  • Is the project management plan, including timeline, costs, and personnel, realistic?

For Community Infrastructure Planning (CI-P) proposals:

  • Does the proposal provide convincing evidence that the proposed infrastructure will result in compelling new CISE research and education opportunities?
  • How well does the proposed research focus that the infrastructure enables fit with CISE core disciplines? Are CISE researchers involved in an integral way in the CRI project, particularly in leadership positions?
  • Does the proposal provide evidence of community need for the infrastructure as well as community involvement in the design and implementation of the infrastructure?
  • Is there clear evidence that the new infrastructure or the enhanced infrastructure meets the needs of the community that is involved and that the community supports the development of the infrastructure? Has any existing infrastructure been used successfully by the community, particularly CISE researchers?
  • Is there a sound project management plan, including timeline and personnel?
  • Is the planning focused around preparation for a full infrastructure implementation and submission of a future CI-New or CI-EN proposal?

For Community Infrastructure NEW (CI-New) and Community Infrastructure Enhancement (CI-EN) proposals:

  • Does the proposal provide convincing evidence that the research infrastructure will result in compelling new research and education opportunities?
  • How well does the proposed research focus fit with CISE core disciplines? Are CISE researchers involved in an integral way, particularly in leadership positions?
  • Does the proposal provide convincing evidence that a diverse community of users plans to use the capabilities provided?
  • Is there existing similar infrastructure that is available to the community? How is this infrastructure different, and is development of the new infrastructure or enhancement of the existing infrastructure justified with respect to other existing infrastructure available to the community?
  • Have the PIs convincingly demonstrated that the project team has the skills necessary to acquire, develop, and/or operate community research infrastructure so as to provide a high level of service and support for a broadly-based community of users?
  • Is the project management plan, including timeline, costs, and personnel, realistic?
  • To what extent does the proposal convincingly describe the means by which user satisfaction will be evaluated and used to refine and improve subsequent infrastructure services and operations?
  • If the proposal is for new community infrastructure, has the team demonstrated community support for the infrastructure and plans for community involvement in the development and future use of the infrastructure?
  • If the proposal describes plans to enhance existing infrastructure, determine the extent to which:
    • The proposal builds a convincing case that the existing infrastructure has enabled compelling research and education opportunities. Evidence of this may include innovative research results, refereed publications and theses that used the infrastructure [note those without co-authors from the proposing institution(s)], use by courses, courseware developed, software tool development, dissemination and use, technology transfer, and other government or industry support, etc.;
    • The PIs convincingly demonstrated that they have provided a high level of user support for a broad-based research and education community.

B. Review and Selection Process

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

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

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

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

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

VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Notification of the Award

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

B. Award Conditions

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

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at 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 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 http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

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 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:

  • Harriet G. Taylor, Lead Program Director, CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: htaylor@nsf.gov

  • Mimi McClure, Program Director, ACI, 1145, telephone: (703) 292-5197, email: mmcclure@nsf.gov

  • Sankar Basu, Program Director, CCF, 1115, telephone: (703) 292-7843, email: sabasu@nsf.gov

  • Kevin Crowston, Program Director, IIS, 1125, telephone: (703) 292-5311, email: kcrowsto@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

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

IX. OTHER INFORMATION

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_id=USNSF_179.

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

Related Programs:

NSF provides additional funding opportunities for the computing community via the following programs and their solicitations:

Discovery Research Programs:

Computer and Network Systems (CNS): Core Programs,
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=12765&org=CNS&from=home

Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS): Core Programs,
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13707&org=IIS&from=home

Computing and Communication Foundations (CCF): Core Programs,
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503220&org=CCF&from=home

Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC),
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504709&org=CNS&from=home

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS),
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503286&org=CISE

Education and Workforce Development Programs:

Discovery Research K-12 (DR-K12),
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=500047&org=EHR&sel_org=EHR&from=fund

Computing Education for the 21st Century (CE21),
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503582&org=CNS&from=home

Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and Computer Science,
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5736&org=CISE&from=home

Cyberlearning: Transforming Education (Cyberlearning),
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503581&org=CNS&from=home

Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF),
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=6201&org=DGE&from=home

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Sites and Supplements,
http://nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5517&org=NSF&sel_org=XCUT&from=fund

Research Infrastructure Programs:

Major Research Instrumentation (MRI),
http://nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5260&org=NSF&sel_org=XCUT&from=fund

Data Infrastructure Building Blocks (DIBBs),
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?WT.z_pims_id=504776&ods_key=nsf12557

Campus Cyberinfrastructure - Network Infrastructure and Engineering (CC-NIE),
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504748&org=CNS&from=home

Software Infrastructure for Sustained Innovation (SI2), http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13525/nsf13525.htm

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 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:

nsfpubs@nsf.gov

or telephone:

(703) 292-7827

  • To Locate NSF Employees:

(703) 292-5111


PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

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

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

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

Policies and Important Links

|

Privacy | FOIA | Help | Contact NSF | Contact Web Master | 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
Text Only