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
otherwise 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. Some Program Officers 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 for conformance with NSF policy.
A. REVIEW CRITERIA
The National Science Board (NSB) established the following criteria
for the selection of research projects (including projects to
improve the teaching and learning of science and engineering)
by the NSF at its 228th meeting on August 20-21, 1981 (NSB-81-488):
"In order to provide for the fair and equitable selection
of the most meritorious research projects for support, the Foundation
has established criteria for their review and evaluation. These
criteria are intended to be applied to all research proposals
in a balanced and judicious manner, in accordance with the objectives
and content of each proposal. Four criteria for the selection
of research projects by the National Science Foundation are listed
below, together with the elements that constitute each criterion."
"(1) Research performance competence -- This
criterion relates to the capability of the investigator(s), the
technical soundness of the proposed approach, and the adequacy
of the institutional resources available.
(2) Intrinsic merit of the research -- This criterion
is used to assess the likelihood that the research will lead to
new discoveries or fundamental advances within its field of science
or engineering, or have substantial impact on progress in that
field or in other scientific and engineering fields.
(3) Utility or relevance of the research -- This
criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the research can
contribute to the achievement of a goal that is extrinsic or in
addition to that of the research field itself, and thereby serve
as the basis for new or improved technology or assist in the solution
of societal problems.
(4) Effect of the research on the infrastructure of science
and engineering -- This criterion relates to the potential
of the proposed research to contribute to better understanding
or improvement of the quality, distribution or effectiveness of
the Nation's scientific and engineering research, education, and
manpower base."
"Criteria (1), (2) and (3) constitute an integral set and
are applied in a balanced way to all research and science education
proposals in accordance with the objectives and content of each
proposal. Criterion (1), performance competence, is essential
to the evaluation of the quality of every proposal. It covers
the investigator's record of past research accomplishments, including,
where significant, communication of findings and sharing of data
and other research products. The relative weight given Criteria
(2) and (3) depends on the nature of the proposed work; Criterion
(2), intrinsic merit, is emphasized in the review of basic research
proposals, while Criterion (3), utility or relevance, is emphasized
in the review of applied research proposals. Criterion (3) also
relates to major goal-oriented activities that the Foundation
carries out, such as those directed at improving the knowledge
base underlying science and technology policy, furthering international
cooperation in science and engineering, and addressing areas of
national need."
"Criterion (4), effect on the infrastructure of science
and engineering, permits the evaluation of proposals in terms
of their potential for improving the scientific and engineering
enterprise and its education activities in ways other than those
encompassed in the first three criteria. Included under this
criterion are questions relating to scientific, engineering and
education personnel, including participation of women, minorities
and individuals with disabilities; the distribution of resources
with respect to institutions and geographical area; stimulation
of high-quality activities in important but underdeveloped fields;
support of research initiation for investigators without previous
Federal research support as a principal investigator or co-principal
investigator; and interdisciplinary approaches to research or
education in appropriate areas. Criterion (4) does not apply
to commercial organizations."
Any specific criteria that apply to individual programs, while
falling within the general criteria presented in this section,
are contained in relevant program announcements/solicitations.
Proposals that involve cooperative activities with former Warsaw
Pact countries may also be subject to internal U.S. Government
review for potential national security concerns.
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
limits 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.
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.
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. If the program recommendation is for an award
and final division or other programmatic approval is obtained,
then the recomendation 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.
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 the Government 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.