This document has been archived.
Title: Instrumentation for Materials Research - Major Instrumentation Projects
(IMR-MIP)
Date: 09/16/03
Replaced:
Instrumentation for Materials Research - Major Instrumentation Projects
(IMR-MIP)
Program Solicitation
NSF 03-604
[NSF Logo] National Science Foundation
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Division of Materials Research
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
December 15, 2003
Thereafter, the third Monday in October
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
General Information
Program Title:
Instrumentation for Materials Research - Major Instrumentation
Projects (IMR-MIP)
Synopsis of Program:
This Program Solicitation establishes within the Instrumentation
for Materials Research (IMR) Program in the Division of Materials
Research (DMR) a new opportunity for support for the design and
construction of major instruments, sited at major U.S.
facilities, which cost more than $2 million per instrument. The
program is also intended to support the development of detailed
conceptual and engineering design for new tools for materials
preparation or characterization at major national facilities.
Such instruments may include, for example, neutron beam lines,
synchrotron beam lines, and high field magnets as well as
development of detectors and preparation environments necessary
to support materials research. The program will support two
types of awards: Conceptual and Engineering Design (CED) awards
and Construction (CNST) awards. A CED award will enable the
proposer to do the necessary engineering design of the
instrument. A CNST proposal may only be submitted after a
satisfactory engineering design of the instrument has been
completed and has been approved by both the facility at which the
instrument will be situated and by NSF. The program will not
provide operating funds for any of the projects it supports
through this solicitation. Operational costs must be supported
either by the facility at which the instrument is located or
through some other source. DMR expects to have $3.5 million
available to support this activity in FY 2004, and to increase
this level of support in future years, depending upon the
availability of funds.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
* Hugh M. Van Horn, Senior Scientist/Program Director (NAF), Directorate
for Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Division of Materials Research,
1065 N, telephone: (703) 292-4920, email: hvanhorn@nsf.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
* 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Eligibility Information
* Organization Limit:
IMR-MIP Proposals may be submitted by colleges or universities in the
United States with strong research and education programs. NSF does
not normally support research or educational activities by scientists
employed by other Federal agencies or Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers (FFRDCs). However, a scientist, engineer, or
educator who holds a joint appointment with a university as well as
with an FFRDC may submit proposals through the university. Such an
individual may receive support if he/she is a faculty member of the
university even if part of his/her salary is provided by the Federal
agency. Under unusual circumstances, a Federal research laboratory or
FFRDC may submit a proposal directly to NSF; for example, if such an
institution provides unique capabilities which can be made available
to members of the university community through an NSF award. NSF
support will not be made available to support activities which are the
normal responsibility of the Federal laboratory or FFRDC. Interested
Principal Investigators (PIs) at a Federal laboratory or an FFRDC
should contact the cognizant program officer named in this
Solicitation before preparing a proposal in response to this
Solicitation.
* PI Eligibility Limit: None Specified.
* Limit on Number of Proposals: None Specified.
Award Information
* Anticipated Type of Award: Other - Continuing Grant or Cooperative
Agreement
* Estimated Number of Awards: 3 to 4 - (2 or 3 CED awards and 1 CNST
award per year)
* Anticipated Funding Amount: $3,500,000
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
* Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: This solicitation contains
information that deviates from the standard Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)
proposal preparation guidelines. Please see the full text of this
solicitation for further information.
B. Budgetary Information
* Cost Sharing Requirements: Cost Sharing is Specialized. Please see the
full text of this solicitation for further information.
* Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable.
* Other Budgetary Limitations: Not Applicable.
C. Due Dates
* Full Proposal Deadline Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
December 15, 2003
Thereafter, the third Monday in October
Proposal Review Information
* 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: Additional reporting requirements apply.
Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of Program Requirements
I. Introduction
II. Program Description
III. Eligibility Information
IV. Award Information
V. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. Budgetary Information
C. Due Dates
D. FastLane Requirements
VI. Proposal Review Information
A. NSF Proposal Review Process
B. Review Protocol and Associated Customer Service Standard
VII. Award Administration Information
A. Notification of the Award
B. Award Conditions
C. Reporting Requirements
VIII.Contacts for Additional Information
IX. Other Programs of Interest
I. INTRODUCTION
Sophisticated tools and facilities for materials preparation and
characterization are essential for researchers studying materials in a wide
range of scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, biology,
materials science, the geosciences, and engineering. They include, for
example, facilities for neutron scattering, synchrotron radiation, and high
magnetic fields. Through the program described in this Solicitation, NSF
intends to support the design and construction of a variety of mid-scale
instruments(1), including but not limited to beamlines, high-field magnets,
detectors, and preparation environments where appropriate. Some of
these instruments may be developed in partnership with other federal
agencies. NSF has a key role to play in supporting the education and
training of the future researchers who will develop instrumentation for
these facilities and use them effectively for the advancement of science.
Therefore priority will be given to those proposals which involve students
in the design and construction of the instruments.
______________
(1)For the purposes of this Solicitation, �mid-scale instruments" - also
called "major instrumentation projects� - are those with construction costs
greater than about $2 million but less than about $20 million. Support for
smaller projects is available through NSF�s Major Research Instrumentation
(MRI) Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Program will:
* Help address the urgent need to increase the number and quality of
mid-scale instruments available to the entire US research community in
materials and related areas of science and engineering.
* Enable the training of the next generation of instrument scientists
and engineers.
* Enable existing instruments to be upgraded as new technology becomes
available.
* Optimize the choice of instruments built by picking the most mature
projects for construction.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Instrumentation for Materials Research - Major Instrumentation Projects
(IMR-MIP) Program is to be used for design and construction only; operation
of the instruments built with these funds is to be provided from other
sources (i.e., other programs within NSF or non-NSF funds). Staffing and
operating the instrument will remain the responsibility of the proposing
institution.
Beginning in FY 2004 and in future years, the IMR-MIP program will consider
two different types of proposals:
1. Conceptual and Engineering Design (CED) proposals may request support
to develop concepts for mid-scale projects to a level of maturity
sufficient to determine whether such a project is ready for
construction. Projects for which detailed engineering designs are
needed are those with subsequent construction costs greater than about
$5 million. A successful CED proposal does not guarantee that the
subsequent construction of the instrument will be funded.
2. Construction (CNST) proposals may request support for the construction
of the instruments. In order to be considered for possible funding,
CNST proposals must include a detailed engineering design, with a Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS) to level 4 [see section V.A.(C).b. below for
definitions], together with a detailed cost estimate. This level of
detail can be provided by a previous CED award or by a similar study
funded through other sources (e.g., institutional support, private
funding). The WBS must meet the approval of both the facility at
which the instrument will be located and NSF's National Facilities
(NAF) Program Director. The IMR-MIP Program expects to make one
5-year award from each annual competition in the amount of perhaps $3
million to $4 million per year. The CNST awards will be funded as
Cooperative Agreements.
The IMR-MIP Program will accept proposals from university researchers for
the design and construction of mid-scale tools for materials research �
including equipment for materials characterization or preparation, such as
detectors, beam lines, new high-field magnets, or preparation
environments � at user facilities supported by NSF or other sources,
including the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). For example, these could include
proposals for beam-line instrumentation at the Spallation Neutron Source
(SNS).
The scientific team that constructs such an instrument will be limited to
25% of the total time available on that instrument, while at least 75% will
be available for the facility to allocate to other users through its normal
peer review process. To make sure that the facility is willing to
entertain such a project, the Principal Investigators (PIs) for a CED or
CNST proposal must attach to the proposal a letter from the facility
director stipulating that if the PIs are successful in obtaining subsequent
construction funding, the facility will allow construction and will staff
and operate the equipment at the completion of construction through the
operations phase.
It is not necessary that a PI have received a CED award prior to submitting
a CNST proposal, so long as the documents necessary for a detailed review
have been provided which meet both the facility and NSF approval. Not all
CED awards are expected to result in successful CNST proposals.
III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
IMR-MIP Proposals may be submitted by colleges or universities in the
United States with strong research and education programs. NSF does not
normally support research or educational activities by scientists employed
by other Federal agencies or Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers (FFRDCs). However, a scientist, engineer, or educator who holds a
joint appointment with a university as well as with an FFRDC may submit
proposals through the university. Such an individual may receive support
if he/she is a faculty member of the university even if part of his/her
salary is provided by the Federal agency. Under unusual circumstances, a
Federal research laboratory or FFRDC may submit a proposal directly to NSF;
for example, if such an institution provides unique capabilities which can
be made available to members of the university community through an NSF
award. NSF support will not be made available to support activities which
are the normal responsibility of the Federal laboratory or FFRDC.
Interested Principal Investigators (PIs) at a Federal laboratory or an
FFRDC should contact the cognizant program officer named in this
Solicitation before preparing a proposal in response to this Solicitation.
An institution may submit at most one IMR-MIP proposal in a given year,
whether for Conceptual and Engineering Design (CED) or for Construction
(CNST).
IV. AWARD INFORMATION
The IMR-MIP Program anticipates making 2 or 3 CED awards per year, funded
through continuing grants for up to three years, each for a total of up to
about $2 million; and/or making one CNST award, funded through a five-year
cooperative agreement, for about $3 million to $4 million per year.
V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Full Proposal Instructions:
Proposals submitted in response to this program announcement/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/cgi-bin/getpub?gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be
obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (301) 947-2722
or by e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.
The following special instructions deviate from the GPG guidelines.
Proposals must contain the items listed below and adhere to the specified
page limitations. No additional information may be provided by links to
web pages. Proposals not meeting the GPG guidelines and the following
instructions will be returned without review.
Cover Sheet: Select the program solicitation number from the pull down
list. A single NSF Unit of Consideration will then automatically be
entered. FastLane allows one Principal Investigator (PI) and at most four
Co-PIs to be designated. Additional lead personnel should be designated as
non co-PI Senior Personnel. The title should start with "IMR-MIP:".
Project Summary (2-page limit): Provide a summary description of the
proposed project including discussion of its objectives and key features in
a manner that will be informative to a general technical audience. The
project summary must separately address both NSF review criteria of
intellectual merit and broader impacts of the proposed activity.
Project Description: The project description section contains the following
items a through e, and is limited to a combined total length of 25 pages
for CED proposals and 50 pages for CNST proposals, inclusive of tables,
figures, or other graphical data.
a. Introduction: Describe briefly where the project "fits" on a national
and international level. Limit: 1 page. This one-page item is included
within the page limitation for the Project Description.
b. Vision and Goals: Describe the vision and goals for the proposed
project, including its potential in enabling the nation�s research and
education infrastructure for materials science and engineering and its
broader educational and societal impacts.
c. Capabilities of the Project: Conceptual and Engineering Design (CED)
proposals may request support to develop concepts for mid-scale projects to
a level of maturity sufficient to determine whether such a project is ready
for construction. Projects for which detailed engineering designs are
needed are those with subsequent construction costs greater than $5
million. The proposal should provide a brief but compelling scientific
justification for the project; summarize the qualifications of the
Principal Investigator and his or her collaborators, indicating their
ability to complete a design with the necessary detail; and summarize the
approach to be taken in completing the design. CED proposals for
mid-scale instruments are expected to require funding up to about $2
million in total. To make sure that the facility where the instrument would
be located is willing to entertain such a project, the Principal
Investigators for a CED proposal must attach a letter from the facility
director stating that if they are successful in obtaining subsequent
construction funding, the facility will staff and operate the project at
the completion of construction through the operation phase.
Construction (CNST) proposals may request support for the construction of
mid-scale projects. The proposal should begin with a compelling scientific
case, justifying the need for the project; summarize the qualifications of
the Principal Investigators for overseeing such a construction project;
include a detailed engineering design, with a Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) to level 4 (cf. , reference 2); provide detailed staffing estimates;
indicate the scheduling of major aspects of the work; and provide a
detailed estimate of the costs of the project. NSF does not allow a
separate budgeting for contingencies, so it is important to ensure that the
estimates for necessary materials, staffing, and other major cost drivers
are made carefully enough so that the total cost of the project is
sufficient to accommodate unanticipated problems. This level of detail can
be provided by a previous CED award or by a similar study funded through
other sources (e.g., institutional support, private funding). The CNST
awards will be funded as Cooperative Agreements. To make sure that the
facility is willing to entertain such a project, the Principal
Investigators for a CNST proposal must attach a letter from the facility
director stating that if they are successful in obtaining construction
funding, the facility will staff and operate the equipment � detector,
instrument, beam line, etc. � at the completion of construction through the
operations phase.
(2)The Project Manager�s Desk Reference, James P. Lewis (McGraw-Hill,
1995), pp. 78 ff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Education, Outreach, and Knowledge Transfer: Describe how the project
will involve graduate and undergraduate students, postdoctoral associates,
and others. Describe how the project will involve underrepresented groups
in science and engineering. Describe outreach plans intended to increase
the external user base, to reach scientific and engineering communities not
traditionally involved in the types of research enabled by the project.
Describe provisions for knowledge transfer to the broader research and
technology communities.
e. Management Structure: Describe the management structure for the
project. For large CNST projects this should include a discussion of how
costs will be controlled, how the project will maintain the work schedule,
how technical risks will be assessed and minimized, and the frequency of
the institution's periodic project reviews.
Biographical Sketches (2-page limit each for PI and co-PIs;1-page limit
each for other participants): Provide a biographical sketch for each
participant expected to have an important role in the project, including
their titles and affiliations. The sketch should describe the individual�s
academic and professional history and may list five significant
publications and other activities or accomplishments. In choosing what to
include, emphasize information that will be helpful in understanding the
strengths, qualifications, and specific impact the individual brings to the
project.
Budget: Provide annual budgets for each year of the project. The FastLane
system will automatically fill out the cumulative multi-year budget.
Budget Justification (3-page limit): Justify the funds requested in the
major budget categories for the project. Describe the proposed allocation
of funds with sufficient clarity to show how resources will be utilized in
carrying out the project.
Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources (3-page limit): This section of
the proposal will be used to assess the adequacy of the organizational
resources available to perform the effort proposed. Provide details of
existing or proposed resource commitments (see below) from other
organizations, such as the government, industry, private foundations, and
non-U.S. institutions. Describe only those resources that are directly
applicable to the project. Commitments for CNST proposals that constitute
cost-sharing are limited to 10% (no more, no less) of the NSF funding
support for the mid-scale instrument. That amount should be listed on line
M of the proposal, and it is auditable. Documentation of this cost sharing
should be entered in the Supplementary Documents section. Cost sharing is
not required for CED proposals. Any other commitments detailed in this
section of the proposal will not be auditable.
Supplementary Documentation: Submit official supporting letters that verify
resource commitments by each institution participating in the project.
Specifically, include a letter from the director of the facility at which
the project is to be sited indicating that, if construction funding is
approved, the facility will provide the requisite level of operations
support. List and identify collaborations with industry, national
laboratories, and other universities, including international
collaborations. Letters that verify resource commitments for the auditable
cost sharing described in the "Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources"
section (above) should be clearly labeled as cost sharing commitments.
Proposers are reminded to identify the program announcement/solicitation
number (03-604) in the program announcement/solicitation block on the
proposal Cover Sheet. Compliance with this requirement is critical to
determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit
this information may delay processing.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing:
Cost sharing is not required for CED proposals. For CNST proposals,
academic institutions must provide cost sharing of at least 10% of the NSF
funding support for construction of the mid-scale instrument. This amount
must be shown on line M of the proposed budget and is auditable.
The proposed cost sharing must be shown on Line M on the proposal budget.
Documentation of the availability of cost sharing must be included in the
proposal. Only items which would be allowable under the applicable cost
principles, if charged to the project, may be included as the awardee's
contribution to cost sharing. Contributions may be made from any
non-Federal source, including non-Federal grants or contracts, and may be
cash or in-kind (see OMB Circular A-110, Section 23). It should be noted
that contributions counted as cost-sharing toward projects of another
Federal agency may not be counted towards meeting the specific cost-sharing
requirements of the NSF award. All cost-sharing amounts are subject to
audit. Failure to provide the level of cost-sharing reflected in the
approved award budget may result in termination of the NSF award,
disallowance of award costs and/or refund of award funds to NSF.
C. Due Dates
Proposals must be submitted by the following date(s):
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
December 15, 2003
Thereafter, the third Monday in October
D. FastLane Requirements
Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this
announcement/solicitation through the FastLane system. Detailed
instructions for proposal preparation and submission via FastLane are
available at: http://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 announcement/solicitation should be referred to the
NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this
announcement/solicitation.
Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal
Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II,
Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications).
The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five
working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Proposers
are no longer required to provide a paper copy of the signed Proposal Cover
Sheet to NSF. Further instructions regarding this process are available on
the FastLane Website at: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov
VI. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION
A. NSF Proposal Review Process
Reviews of proposals submitted to NSF are solicited from peers with
expertise in the substantive area of the proposed research or education
project. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the
oversight of the review process. NSF invites the proposer to suggest, at
the time of submission, the names of appropriate or inappropriate
reviewers. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts with
the proposer. Special efforts are made to recruit reviewers from
non-academic institutions, minority-serving institutions, or adjacent
disciplines to that principally addressed in the proposal.
The National Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating
proposals at its meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB 97-72). All NSF proposals
are evaluated through use of the two merit review criteria. In some
instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to
highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
On July 8, 2002, the NSF Director issued Important Notice 127,
Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements Related to the
Broader Impacts Criterion. This Important Notice reinforces the importance
of addressing both criteria in the preparation and review of all proposals
submitted to NSF. NSF continues to strengthen its internal processes to
ensure that both of the merit review criteria are addressed when making
funding decisions.
In an effort to increase compliance with these requirements, the January
2002 issuance of the GPG incorporated revised proposal preparation
guidelines relating to the development of the Project Summary and Project
Description. Chapter II of the GPG specifies that Principal Investigators
(PIs) must address both merit review criteria in separate statements within
the one-page Project Summary. This chapter also reiterates that broader
impacts resulting from the proposed project must be addressed in the
Project Description and described as an integral part of the narrative.
Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals that do
not separately address both merit review criteria within the Project
Summary. It is believed that these changes to NSF proposal preparation and
processing guidelines will more clearly articulate the importance of
broader impacts to NSF-funded projects.
The two National Science Board approved merit review criteria are listed
below (see the Grant Proposal Guide Chapter III.A for further information).
The criteria include considerations that help define them. These
considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given
proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria,
reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are
relevant to the proposal being considered and for which 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
the 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?
NSF staff will give careful consideration to the following in making
funding decisions:
Integration of Research and Education
One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals 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 diversity of learning perspectives.
Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all
citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons
with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of
science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of
diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and
activities it considers and supports.
Additional Review Criteria:
There are four �Critical Decisions� (CDs) for projects seeking funding
through the IMR-MIP program: CD-1, the need for the project; CD-2,
approval of the project baseline; CD-3, authorization to begin
construction; and CD-4, readiness to begin operations. For a CED
proposal, the decision to recommend an award is equivalent to CD-1,
acceptance of the justification for the proposed project. This
decision will be based upon ad hoc mail review of CED proposals and,
if deemed necessary, culminating in a "reverse site visit."
With the support of a CED award, the Principal Investigator (PI)
embarks upon the development of a detailed engineering design and a
project baseline, including a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) complete
to Level 4 (as defined in standard project-management references,
e.g., reference 2). These documents form the basis for a CNST
proposal. It is not necessary that a PI have received a CED award
prior to submitting a CNST proposal, so long as the documents
necessary for a detailed review have been provided which meet both the
facility and NSF approval.
The review of CNST proposals will involve ad hoc mail review which, if
necessary, will be followed by a "reverse site visit" for meritorious
proposals. For each of the major elements of the WBS, reviews will
include a detailed evaluation of the costs, schedule, personnel
estimates, technical risks, and project management. The WBS must be
sufficiently detailed to provide confidence that the project can be
completed on time and within the estimated budget. The purpose of
this review is to assure NSF that the project is feasible and well
managed, that there is a mechanism for addressing any technical risks
involved, and that the costs are well controlled. A recommendation to
fund a CNST award essentially constitutes CD-2 and CD-3 for the
project. Not all CED awards are expected to result in successful CNST
proposals.
Reviewers will thus be asked to address the following additional
criteria:
For CED proposals,
o Is the scientific justification for the proposed project
sufficiently strong to justify the preparation of a detailed
engineering design?
o Do the Principal Investigator and his or her collaborators have
the capabilities to complete a design with the necessary detail?
o Is the approach to be taken in completing the design appropriate,
and is it likely to produce an engineering design containing
sufficient detail to form the basis for a decision on
construction?
o Is an adequate management structure described to oversee the
construction of a mid-scale instrument should the CED proposal be
funded?
o Has the facility director indicated that, if construction funding
is approved, the facility will staff and operate the project at
the completion of construction through the operation phase?
For CNST proposals,
o Is the scientific justification for the proposed project
sufficiently strong to justify construction?
o Do the Principal Investigator and his or her collaborators have
the capabilities to oversee construction?
o Is the engineering design sufficiently detailed, with a Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS) to level 4?
o Are the staffing, scheduling, and cost estimates sufficiently
detailed to provide confidence that the project can be completed
on schedule and within the estimated budget? In particular, have
these estimates been made with sufficient care so that the total
cost of the project is expected to be sufficient to accommodate
unanticipated problems?
o Is a management structure in place to oversee the instrument
construction from start to finish? Have contingency plans been
established to overcome unexpected technical risks? Is the time
to completion reasonable? Has adequate attention been given to
possible delays from suppliers?
NSF will endeavor to inform applicants promptly whether or not they
have been selected to participate in a �reverse site visit.� This
notification is intended to allow at least one month to prepare for
the review. Applicants submitting proposals should receive notice of
the outcome of the review within six months following proposal
submission. For those proposals subjected to a �reverse site
reviews,� a summary narrative of the evaluation and recommendations
resulting from the initial ad hoc mail review will be provided to the
PI and to the panel conducting the reverse site review.
After programmatic approval has been obtained, 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 grants (for CED awards) or Cooperative
Agreements (for CNST awards).
B. Review Protocol and Associated Customer Service Standard
All proposals are carefully reviewed by at least three other persons
outside NSF who are experts in the particular field represented by the
proposal. Proposals submitted in response to this announcement/solicitation
will be reviewed by Ad Hoc and/or panel review.
Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or
decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the
proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate
a recommendation.
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 Director. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of
the decision to award or decline funding.
In most cases, proposers will be contacted by the Program Officer after his
or her recommendation to award or decline funding has been approved by the
Division Director. This informal notification is not a guarantee of an
eventual 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 date of receipt. The interval ends when the Division
Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.
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 Division 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.A. 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 (NSF-GC-1); * or Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP)
Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that
may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreement
awards also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement
Terms and Conditions (CA-1). Electronic mail notification is the preferred
way to transmit NSF awards to organizations that have electronic mail
capabilities and have requested such notification from the Division of
Grants and Agreements.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at
http://www.nsf.gov/home/grants/grants_gac.htm. Paper copies may be obtained
from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (301) 947-2722 or by
e-mail from pubs@nsf.gov.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions is contained in the
NSF Grant Policy Manual (GPM) Chapter II, available electronically on the
NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpm. The GPM is also for
sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office
(GPO), Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO for subscription
information is (202) 512-1800. The GPM may be ordered through the GPO
Website at http://www.gpo.gov.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants),
the PI must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program
Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period.
In addition to the mandatory annual project reports, post-award oversight
will consist of annual project reviews. For the CED awards, these will be
reverse site visits at which the PIs for all currently active CED awards
present detailed progress reports at NSF. For the CNST awards, the annual
project reviews will involve a site visit to the project location with an
external review committee which will evaluate costs, schedule, project
management and assess technical risks for each of the major elements of the
work breakdown schedule. The purpose of the CNST review is to provide NSF
with continuing assurance that the project is well managed, that technical
risks are being addressed effectively, that costs are well controlled, and
the project is on schedule. NSF may terminate CNST projects that
experience unacceptable cost overruns or delays.
Within 90 days after the expiration of an award, the PI also is required to
submit a final project report. Failure to provide final technical reports
delays NSF review and processing of pending proposals for the PI and all
Co-PIs. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance
to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project reporting system,
available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and
final project reports. This system permits electronic submission and
updating of project reports, including information on project participants
(individual and organizational), activities and findings, publications, and
other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to
re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in
earlier updates using the electronic system.
VIII. CONTACTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
* Hugh M. Van Horn, Senior Scientist/Program Director (NAF), Directorate
for Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Division of Materials Research,
1065 N, telephone: (703) 292-4920, email: hvanhorn@nsf.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
* Maxine E. Jefferson-Brown, Computer Specialist, Directorate for
Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Division of Materials Research, 1065
N, telephone: (703) 292-4918, fax: (703) 292-9035, email:
mjeffers@nsf.gov
IX. OTHER PROGRAMS OF INTEREST
The NSF Guide to Programs is a compilation of funding for research and
education in science, mathematics, and engineering. The NSF Guide to
Programs is available electronically at
http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gp. General descriptions of NSF programs,
research areas, and eligibility information for proposal submission are
provided in each chapter.
Many NSF programs offer announcements or solicitations concerning specific
proposal requirements. To obtain additional information about these
requirements, contact the appropriate NSF program offices. Any changes in
NSF's fiscal year programs occurring after press time for the Guide to
Programs will be announced in the NSF E-Bulletin, which is updated daily on
the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/home/ebulletin, and in individual
program announcements/solicitations. Subscribers can also sign up for NSF's
Custom News Service (http://www.nsf.gov/home/cns/start.htm) to be notified
of new funding opportunities that become available.
Within the Division of Materials Research (DMR), other programs that may be
of particular interest to PIs considering proposal submission in response
to this Solicitation include the National Facilities (NAF) program and
Instrumentation for Materials Research (IMR) Program. Additional
information about these programs can be obtained through the DMR Web page:
http://www.nsf.gov/mps/divisions/dmr/start.htm. A particular NSF-wide
program of potential interest is the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)
program. Additional information about all of these programs can be
obtained through NSF�s Guide to Programs.
ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds research and education in most
fields of science and engineering. Awardees are wholly responsible for
conducting their project activities and preparing the results for
publication. Thus, the Foundation does not assume responsibility for such
findings or their interpretation.
NSF welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists, engineers and
educators. The Foundation strongly encourages women, minorities and persons
with disabilities to compete fully in its programs. In accordance with
Federal statutes, regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of
race, color, age, sex, national origin or disability shall be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance
from NSF, although some programs may have special requirements that limit
eligibility.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED)
provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with
disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research
assistants) to work on NSF-supported projects. See the GPG Chapter II,
Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of
proposals.
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 (703) 292-5111
(NSF Information Center):
* TDD (for the hearing-impaired): (703) 292-5090
* To Order Publications or Forms:
Send an e-mail to: pubs@nsf.gov
or telephone: (301) 947-2722
* 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; 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 applicant 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 needing information as part of the review process
or in order to coordinate programs; 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," 63 Federal
Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and
Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998). 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 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 this burden estimate and any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden,
to: Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, Division of Administrative
Services, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230.
OMB control number: 3145-0058.
nsf.gov | About NSF | Funding | Publications | News &
Media | Search | Site Map | Help
[NSF Celebrating 50 Years]The National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,
Virginia 22230, USA Policies
Tel: 703-292-5111, FIRS: 800-877-8339 Contact NSF
| TDD: 703-292-5090 Customize