CHAPTER III NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW
Proposals received by the NSF Proposal Processing Unit are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgment 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 who are experts in the particular field represented by the proposal. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal 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. Program Officers may obtain comments from assembled review panels or from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Recommendations for awards are further reviewed by senior NSF staff.
A. REVIEW CRITERIA
The National Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating proposals submitted to NSF at its meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB97-72). The revised criteria are designed to be useful and relevant across NSF's many different programs, however, NSF will continue to employ special criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The revised merit review criteria are listed below. Following each criterion are potential considerations that the reviewer may employ in the evaluation. These are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. Each reviewer will address only those that are relevant to the proposal and for which he/she is qualified to make judgments.
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?
What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?
B. REVISIONS TO PROPOSALS MADE DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS
In the event of a significant development that might materially affect the outcome of the review of a pending proposal, the proposer should contact the Program Officer to whom the proposal is assigned to discuss the finding or changed circumstances. Submitting additional information must not be used as a means of circumventing page limitations or stated deadlines, but is intended to provide an opportunity to communicate unexpected and significant developments.
Before recommending whether or not NSF should support a particular project, the NSF Program Officer may, subject to certain constraints outlined below, engage in discussions with the proposing PIs.
Negotiating budgets generally involves discussing a lower or higher amount of total support for the proposed project. NSF Program Officers are encouraged to discuss possible "bottom-line" award amounts with PIs. The NSF Program Officer also may suggest reducing or eliminating costs for specific budget items which are clearly too high or unreasonable for the activities to be undertaken; however, this would not generally include faculty salaries (without corresponding reduction in effort), salary rates, fringe benefits, tuition remission or indirect costs (F&A).
When such discussions result in significant changes in the basic objectives or scope of the project as originally proposed, an appropriate proposal modification (which may include a revised proposal budget) signed by the PI and the Authorized Organizational Representative must be submitted to the NSF Program Officer. By signing and submitting this modification to the proposal, the PI and AOR are certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the information provided.
C. AWARD 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. Normally, final programmatic approval is at the division level. Because of the large volume of proposals, this review and consideration process may take up to six months. Large or particularly complex proposals may require additional review and processing time. If the program recommendation is for an award and final division or other programmatic approval is obtained, then the recommendation goes 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. The Division of Grants and Agreements generally makes awards to academic institutions within 30 days after the program division makes its recommendation. Grants being made to organizations that have not received an NSF award within the preceding two years, or involving special situations (such as coordination with another Federal agency or a private funding source), cooperative agreements, and other unusual arrangements may require additional review and processing time.
Proposers are cautioned that only an appointed Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF or the Government should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with an NSF Program Officer. A PI or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants Officer does so at its own risk.
D. COPIES OF REVIEWS
When a decision has been made (whether an award or a declination), verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are mailed to the PI. Proposers may also request and obtain any other releasable material in NSF's file on their proposal. Everything in the file except information that directly identifies either reviewers or other pending or declined proposals is usually releasable to the proposer.
| Start | Contents | Top |