Title: National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure
(NNIC)(nsf15519)
Date: 03/09/2015
National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI)
[1]Program Solicitation
NSF 15-519
NSF Logo
National Science Foundation
Directorate for Engineering
Directorate for Mathematical & Physical Sciences
Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering
Directorate for Biological Sciences
Directorate for Geosciences
Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
Directorate for Education & Human Resources
Office of International and Integrative Activities
Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local
time):
February 02, 2015
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
April 03, 2015
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES
Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be
submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies
& Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 15-1), which is effective for proposals
submitted, or due, on or after December 26, 2014. The PAPPG is
consistent with, and, implements the new Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards (Uniform Guidance) (2 CFR � 200).
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
General Information
Program Title:
National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI)
Synopsis of Program:
Over the past decade of its authorized award life, the National
Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) has enabled major
discoveries, innovations, and contributions to education and
commerce by providing researchers from academia, small and large
companies, and government with open access to university user
facilities with leading-edge fabrication and characterization tools,
instrumentation, and expertise within all disciplines of nanoscale
science, engineering, and technology. The National Science
Foundation is now moving forward with the new National
Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI) as the successor to
the NNIN.
This solicitation establishes a competition for individual
university user facility sites positioned across the nation. A
Coordinating Office will then be selected competitively at a later
stage from among the selected sites to enhance their impact as a
national infrastructure of user facility sites. The ultimate
selection of user facility sites will include capabilities and
instrumentation addressing current and anticipated future user needs
across the broad areas of nanoscale science, engineering, and
technology.
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.
* Lawrence Goldberg, ENG/ECCS, telephone: (703) 292-5373, email:
[2]lgoldber@nsf.gov
* Guebre X. Tessema, MPS/DMR, telephone: (703) 292-4935, email:
[3]gtessema@nsf.gov
* Michelle Bushey, MPS/CHE, telephone: (703) 292-4938, email:
[4]mbushey@nsf.gov
* Sally O'Connor, BIO/DBI, telephone: (703) 292-4552, email:
[5]socconor@nsf.gov
* Sankar Basu, CISE/CCF, telephone: (703) 292-7843, email:
[6]sabasu@nsf.gov
* David Lambert, GEO/EAR, telephone: (703) 292-4736, email:
[7]dlambert@nsf.gov
* Frederick Kronz, SBE/SES, telephone: (703) 292-7283, email:
[8]fkronz@nsf.gov
* David Brown, EHR/DUE, telephone: (703) 292-8831, email:
[9]drbrown@nsf.gov
* Graham Harrison, OIIA/ISE, telephone: (703) 292-7252, email:
[10]gharriso@nsf.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
* 47.041 --- Engineering
* 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
* 47.050 --- Geosciences
* 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
* 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
* 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
* 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources
* 47.079 --- International and Integrative Activities (IIA)
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: 10 to 15
NSF plans to make approximately 10-15 individual awards for shared user
facility sites.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $500,000 to $2,000,000
NSF plans to provide individual awards at a range of $500,000 to a
maximum of $2,000,000 per year, depending on the plans and scope of
capabilities.
Eligibility Information
Who May Submit Proposals:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
* Academic institutions accredited in, and having a campus located
in, the US are eligible to submit or participate in individual
proposals for shared user facility sites.
Who May Serve as PI:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
A US academic institution may submit or participate in only one
individual site proposal submitted in response to this solicitation.
An academic institution that is awarded as a shared user facility
site may also propose later to be the Coordinating Office.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
* Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required.
Please see the full text of this solicitation for further
information.
* 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:
[11]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:
[12]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grant
sgovguide).
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
* Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's
local time):
February 02, 2015
* Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
April 03, 2015
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:
Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Reporting Requirements: Additional reporting requirements apply. Please
see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[13]Summary of Program Requirements
I. [14]Introduction
II. [15]Program Description
III. [16]Award Information
IV. [17]Eligibility Information
V. [18]Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. [19]Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. [20]Budgetary Information
C. [21]Due Dates
D. [22]FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
VI. [23]NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
A. [24]Merit Review Principles and Criteria
B. [25]Review and Selection Process
VII. [26]Award Administration Information
A. [27]Notification of the Award
B. [28]Award Conditions
C. [29]Reporting Requirements
VIII. [30]Agency Contacts
IX. [31]Other Information
I. INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Over the past decade of its authorized award life, the National
Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) has enabled major
discoveries, innovations, and contributions to education and commerce
by providing researchers from academia, small and large companies, and
government with open access to university user facilities with
leading-edge fabrication and characterization tools, instrumentation,
and expertise within all disciplines of nanoscale science, engineering,
and technology. The National Science Foundation is now moving forward
with the new National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI)
as the successor to the NNIN.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) 2014 Strategic Plan^(1)
emphasizes the importance and critical need for the U.S. to sustain a
dynamic infrastructure and toolset to advance nanotechnology, and in
particular the academic infrastructure represented by NNIN. In
addition, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) 2014 Report^(2) to the President and Congress on the Fifth
Assessment of the NNI recommends strong support for nanoscale
infrastructure networks such as NNIN to ensure the effective training
of a new generation of transdisciplinary scientists and engineers.
NSF sought input from the science and engineering community on a
possible future nanotechnology infrastructure support program through a
Dear Colleague Letter (DCL 14-068). A workshop was then conducted of
recognized national experts to develop a vision of how such a future
program could be structured and to identify the key needs for the user
communities over the coming decade.^(3)^
With this background and community input, NSF has developed this
solicitation to create the NNCI. The solicitation establishes a
competition for individual university user facility sites positioned
across the nation. A Coordinating Office will then be selected
competitively at a later stage from among the selected sites to enhance
their impact as a national infrastructure of user facility sites. The
ultimate selection of user facility sites will include capabilities and
instrumentation addressing current and anticipated future user needs
across the broad areas of nanoscale science, engineering, and
technology.
1. National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014,
Washington, DC: [32]http://www.nano.gov/node/1113.
2. PCAST, Report to the President and Congress on the Fifth Assessment
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, October 2014,
Washington, DC:
[33]http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/P
CAST/pcast_fifth_nni_review_oct2014_final.pdf.
3. Report on Workshop for a Future Nanotechnology Infrastructure
Support Program, August 18-19, 2014, Arlington, VA:
[34]https://www.src.org/newsroom/src-in-the-news/2014/656/.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Overall Approach to the NNCI
The competition for individual sites will be for consideration of large
and small university-based user facilities, including those at
minority-serving institutions, that are geographically distributed and
with diverse and complementary capabilities to support current and
anticipated future user needs across the broad spectrum of nanoscale
science, engineering, and technology domains. The selected individual
sites will have autonomy in their operation and management, but will be
required to act in concert with a Coordinating Office that will be
separately competed and chosen at a later stage. Some sites may choose
to partner with facilities at regional or smaller institutions that
would bring specific capabilities for users and benefits to student
training. The overall collection of selected sites and their
capabilities will provide users with cost-effective access both to the
specialized tools, processes, and expertise to support complex
multi-step fabrication at the nanoscale level for structures,
materials, devices, and systems, as well as to the associated
instrumentation for characterization, analysis, and probing at these
dimensions. The program aims to make these capabilities broadly
available to the nation's researchers in academe, industry, and
government to help catalyze new discoveries in science and engineering
and to stimulate technological innovation.
Technical Capabilities in the Coordinated Infrastructure
The broad spectrum of domain capabilities in this coordinated
infrastructure is intended to encompass: physical-, chemical-, and
biological-based nanostructures, materials, devices, and systems;
electronic, optical, photonic, magnetic, mechanical, thermal, chemical,
bioengineering, biomedical, and fluidic nanodevices and systems;
nanoscale building blocks and nanostructured materials, composites,
coatings, and surfaces; geophysical, geochemical, and environmental
nanostructures and processes; synthetic biology, and fabrication in
soft matter including biological interfaces; heterogeneous integration
of complex, three-dimensional nanoscale systems to create new
functionality; hierarchical design and fabrication to build nanoscale
systems across multiple dimensional scales, including modeling and
simulation tools that complement and support these activities;
prototyping, process integration, and testing of manufacturing
concepts, including high-speed roll-to-roll fabrication processes; and
other areas, as appropriate.
Some promising research opportunities that could be enabled include:
formation of new system architectures and heterogeneous materials,
engineered at the nanoscale to integrate formerly disparate electronic,
photonic, mechanical, chemical, and thermal properties into
nanosystems, for functions such as energy conversion and storage,
dissipation of heat, precision sensing, and local actuation;
bio-inspired, self-healing, responsive materials; structures and
devices supporting research in the life sciences and biomedical
applications; synthesis of nanoparticles for study of nanotoxicity;
sensors for environmental science and monitoring; ultrafast sensors for
imaging and recording of chemical, physiological, and biochemical
processes; new, more energy efficient devices and circuits for
communication, storage and processing of digital information, including
quantum information; and devices and circuits for new information
processing architectures such as neuromorphic computing.
Some of the sites will have widely used nanofabrication capabilities
applicable to diverse areas, while some sites may offer critical,
highly specialized tools and processes to support a focused subset of
nanoscience and technology. They will enable support for exploration
and development of potential new applications of nanotechnology.
Appropriate characterization techniques should be intended principally
in feedback control of fabrication processes, though access may be
needed in specific fields to unique, valuable, and specialized
characterization capabilities, either on-site or by remote operation.
Considerations for Individual Site Proposals
Proposing institutions are encouraged to include a broad range of
technical capabilities in their individual user facility site
proposals, but can also choose to focus on particular subfields within
their areas of expertise. Some sites may choose to partner with
facilities at regional or smaller institutions that would bring
specific capabilities for users and benefits to student training. The
Site Director, who is the Principal Investigator for the individual
site proposal, will be the key individual for management of the
individual site and will work in concert with the other Site Directors
and the Coordinating Office, and with the NSF.
Important: Please see "Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources"
section in this Solicitation for requirements of facilities and
equipment.
Sites should demonstrate that they have the ability to manage shared
user facilities and to understand and serve the needs of external
users, including those from companies as well as from academia. They
should highlight how they will support a rich user base with broad
accessibility and affordable user fee structure. They should show how
NSF funds will leverage those of the university and other resources to
grow the numbers of external users. Sites must embrace a culture of
open access to researchers for any research project of merit, with
protection of intellectual property, and mechanisms for encouraging
non-traditional users from diverse disciplines. They should have an
organizational structure that allows coordination of complex process
steps and tools for integrated tasks, and acceptance of experimental
risks associated with non-standard processes and materials. They should
have strong underlying internal research programs that provide critical
research mass and knowledge base in developing new processes,
methodologies, and instrumentation. They should have a plan for
supporting a professional technical staff with requisite expertise to
enable external users to plan and carry out experiments with a rapid
cycle time, and to instruct in laboratory safety, process methods, and
instrumentation usage. Sites should provide an accessible web portal to
instruct potential users how to gain access to the facility, and to
describe the facility's technical capabilities, tools, and
instrumentation. They should have a plan for data management and
sharing of the products of research. They should also have methods for
assessment and quantifiable metrics of overall site performance and
impact, including those for educational and outreach activities.
Nanotechnology facilities provide unique opportunities to infuse
innovative education with research at the frontiers of the field. Sites
should provide clear, focused strategies for integrating forefront
science and engineering with education, including plans for assessing
effectiveness and spreading promising practices. Learning experiences,
resources, and tools for graduate and undergraduate students and
postdoctoral associates, as well as educational outreach and workforce
development plans, should leverage the unique strengths of their user
facility. These may address, for example, engaging participants in
community colleges, pre-college grades, informal science settings, and
international education experiences. Sites should also provide outreach
programs to potential users in the broader science and engineering
communities, including those from startups and small businesses, whose
work could benefit from advanced fabrication and instrumentation
capabilities. They should assess and utilize regional needs and
opportunities to broaden the participation of groups underrepresented
in science and engineering among students, faculty, staff, management,
and in outreach activities. The sites should have plans for knowledge
dissemination to the broader research, education, and technology
communities. They should demonstrate how they will complement and
connect to other local resources, such as business incubators,
prototyping, and manufacturing facilities. The range and scope of the
education and outreach activities are expected to be commensurate with
the size of the requested budgets.
Sites having particular expertise in the social and ethical
implications of nanotechnology are encouraged to integrate the
instruction and study of those aspects into their proposals that can
leverage their user community base, and which relate to the
capabilities of their respective user facilities.
Role of the Coordinating Office
Following selection and award of the individual sites, NSF will hold a
meeting of the Site Directors to discuss recommendations to
significantly enhance the impact of this investment that will lead to a
coordinated national infrastructure of user facility sites for
nanotechnology. A Coordinating Office, to be located at one of the
awarded institution sites, will then be competed and chosen to provide
the coordinating function. The Director of the Coordinating Office will
be a key individual for developing management strategies and
operational plans in concert with the Site Directors of the individual
user facilities, and will serve as a principal contact person with the
NSF.
The Coordinating Office will be responsible for establishing a
comprehensive web portal to ensure close linkage among the individual
facility websites such that they present a unified face to the user
community of overall capabilities, tools, and instrumentation. It will
also work with all sites in ways to guide users regarding which site or
sites, which instruments, and which processes would enable users to
complete their projects most successfully. The Office will help to
coordinate and disseminate best practices for national-level education
and outreach programs across sites, as well as the instruction and
study of social and ethical implications of nanotechnology. It will
seek to harmonize capabilities for modeling and simulation in nanoscale
fabrication and characterization across sites, and provide effective
coordination with the NSF-supported Network for Computational
Nanotechnology (NCN). The Office will establish an external advisory
board of distinguished members from academia, industry, and government
to provide advice and guidance through the Coordinating Office.
The Office will work with the individual sites to establish uniform
methods for assessment and quantifiable metrics of overall site
performance and impact, including those for educational and outreach
activities. It will help to share best practices and laboratory safety
and training procedures across all sites. It will engage all sites in a
planning process to explore emerging areas of nanoscale science,
engineering, and technology that can lead to future growth of the
external user base. It will coordinate the acquisition needs for
specialized instrumentation across all sites to enhance new areas of
research growth. The Office will also coordinate data management across
all sites and the dissemination of shared knowledge to research,
education, and technology communities, as well as in enhancing
connections with other nationally funded academic centers or networks
and facilities supported by government, the private sector, and
international partners.
III. AWARD INFORMATION
Approximately $16 million total funds will be available in this
competition for each year of a five-year duration of FY 2015-2019,
depending on the availability of funds. NSF intends to provide
individual awards to support approximately 10-15 university user
facility sites at a range of $500,000 to a maximum of $2,000,000 per
year, depending on the plans and scope of their capabilities. Proposing
institutions can include partnerships with other university user
facility sites under subawards. All awards will be made as cooperative
agreements with each submitting institution site. The initial award
commitments will be for five years and may be renewed once for an
additional five years, subject to external merit review. Limited new
competitions may be held, based on available funds, to address critical
needs in nanotechnology or to replace non-performing sites or the
Coordinating Office.
The awarded institutions will be eligible to compete at a later stage
to establish a Coordinating Office that will provide coordination of
the individual user facility sites as a national infrastructure of
sites. The institution selected for the Coordinating Office will
receive a separate award with funds for purposes of management,
outreach, and related coordinating activities. Funds allocated for the
Coordinating Office will be approximately $700,000 per year.
IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
Who May Submit Proposals:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
* Academic institutions accredited in, and having a campus located
in, the US are eligible to submit or participate in individual
proposals for shared user facility sites.
Who May Serve as PI:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
A US academic institution may submit or participate in only one
individual site proposal submitted in response to this solicitation.
An academic institution that is awarded as a shared user facility
site may also propose later to be the Coordinating Office.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Additional Eligibility Info:
Non-academic U.S. institutions and organizations, including national
laboratories and private-sector companies, as well as international
institutions, may participate in such proposals using their own
resources.
V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Letters of Intent (required):
For NSF planning purposes for the review process, a non-binding letter
of intent to submit an individual user facility site proposal to this
Solicitation must be sent by the date listed at the beginning of this
solicitation. The letter of intent (in clear text, 1-page limit, with
no attachments) should list the PI/Site Director, the institution, and
any other participating institutions. Provide a brief summary
discussion of the proposed site in terms of its principal focus areas
and capabilities, the funds likely to be requested, and whether the
submitting institution intends to be considered for the Coordinating
Office.
Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions:
When submitting a Letter of Intent through FastLane in response to this
Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:
* Sponsored Projects Office (SPO) Submission is required when
submitting Letters of Intent
* Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is not allowed
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:
[35]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
[36]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:
([37]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgov
guide). 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 [38]nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
See Chapter II.C.2 of the [39]GPG for guidance on the required sections
of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the
proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation
may deviate from the GPG instructions.
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.
Cover Page:
* FastLane Users: Proposers must identify this program solicitation
number by selecting "National Nanotechnology Coordinated
Infrastructure" from the program Announcement/Solicitation Box,
which will automatically populate the NSF Unit of Consideration
with the correct NSF organization and program. The project title
must begin with "NNCI:".
* Grants.gov Users: The program solicitation number will be
pre-populated by Grants.gov on the NSF Grant Application Cover
Page. In Field 2, Unit of Consideration, enter 07010000 for the
Division Code and 7601 for the Program Code. The project title must
begin with "NNCI:".
Project Summary: Provide a summary description of the proposed user
facility site that conveys its objectives, key features, and principal
focus areas in a manner that will be informative to a general technical
audience. As required in FastLane, the project summary is limited to 1
page and must address within separate text boxes the Overview, the
Intellectual Merit, and the Broader Impacts of the proposed activity.
Table of Contents: The Table of Contents is generated by FastLane and
cannot be edited.
Project Description: The project description section contains the
following items a through h, and is limited to a combined total length
of 15 pages, inclusive of tables, figures, or other graphical data.
a. List of Participants: Provide a list, showing institution and
departmental affiliation, of the Site Director, and other senior
level personnel expected to have an important role in the user
facility site.
b. Vision and Goals: Describe the vision and goals for the proposed
user facility site, including its principal focus areas and
potential in contributing to the nation's research and education
infrastructure for nanoscale science, engineering, and technology.
c. Capabilities of the Individual Site: Important: Please see
"Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources" section in this
Solicitation for requirements of facilities and equipment. Describe
the extent of fabrication and characterization instrumentation
capabilities, the breadth of coverage of research fields and needs,
and the nature of user services to be provided. Present evidence of
capability of operating as a shared user facility that can serve
both external and internal users, including those from companies as
well as from academia. Describe how external users will apply to
the facility, how non-traditional users will be encouraged, how
projects will be accepted, and how users can be accommodated both
on site and remotely. Discuss how NSF funds will be leveraged with
university and other resources to grow the numbers of external
users. Describe plans for professional staffing, accommodating
external users, encouraging non-traditional users, user training,
user fee structure, and intellectual property policy. Describe the
in-house research programs of principal faculty members that
underpin the site's capabilities and which would enable it to
support development of new processes, tools, and instrumentation.
Describe the planning process for acquisition and development of
new tools and instrumentation needed to position the facility at
the frontier over the duration of the award. Discuss plans to
develop any connections with other nationally funded academic
centers or networks and facilities supported by government, the
private sector, and international partners.
d. Education, Outreach, and Knowledge Dissemination: State the
specific goals and objectives of this component. Explain how
innovative educational experiences infused with content from the
frontiers of nanoscale science and engineering research for
graduate and undergraduate students, postdoctoral associates, and
others will be emphasized within the facility. Educational
experiences may include research experiences for undergraduates and
teachers, domestic and/or international, the development of
instructional modules for incorporation into undergraduate
curricula, and other novel educational resources and tools based on
the scientific and technological endeavors at the facility.
Describe educational outreach and workforce development plans, and
how diversity and broadening participation will be promoted among
students, faculty, staff, management, and outreach activities.
Describe outreach plans intended to increase the external user
base, to encourage non-traditional users from diverse communities,
and to reach potential users from startups and small businesses,
whose work could benefit from advanced fabrication and
instrumentation capabilities. Discuss how the site may complement
and connect to other local resources, such as business incubators,
prototyping and manufacturing facilities. Describe provisions for
innovative strategies to disseminate effective practices and
knowledge to the broader research, education, and technology
communities. The range and scope of the education and outreach
activities are expected to be commensurate with the size of the
requested budgets.
e. Social and Ethical Implications: Sites proposing to conduct this
work should describe plans for promoting the development of
research infrastructure that will serve to enhance the instruction
and study of social and ethical implications of nanotechnology that
leverages the facility's user community base. Indicate the social
and ethical issues that will be the core concerns. Such concerns
may include one or more of the following: socio-technical
integration, governance involving multiple stakeholder groups,
responsible research and innovation, studies of risk analysis and
risk perception, environmental justice, human health and safety,
and public policy. Indicate local researchers likely to be
involved, and describe how they will contribute to the
infrastructure enhancing efforts. Describe plans to facilitate more
broadly cooperation and interchange with other institutions.
f. Management: Describe the management structure for the individual
user facility site. Discuss the method of selection, duration, and
responsibilities of the Site Director and other management
individuals. Describe provisions for oversight, including an
external advisory body, its composition, responsibilities, and
means of advising site management. Describe the methods for
managing the external users program and for integrating the
activities with academic programs. Discuss the planning process to
determine overall site requirements, including the development of a
vision for future research directions, needs, and capabilities;
allocation of resources; and prioritization of equipment
acquisition, development, and staffing. Describe plans for
assessment and quantifiable metrics of site performance and impact,
including for education and outreach activities. Describe the
processes for setting goals, including promoting significant
participation of non-traditional users and external users.
g. Broader Impacts: Discuss the broader societal impacts of the
proposed user facility site, including plans for increasing overall
public awareness. Discuss plans for broadening participation in
nanoscale science and engineering research, education and outreach,
the involvement of smaller schools, minority-serving institutions,
and international partners, and the dissemination of results of the
proposed studies on social and ethical aspects of nanotechnology.
h. Results from Prior NSF Support: The PI or co-PI must provide
information on any received awards funded by NSF in the past five
years, with emphasis on an award most closely related to the
current proposal. The Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts of the
award results must be discussed. See instructions in the NSF Grant
Proposal Guide.
References Cited: Provide appropriate references.
Biographical Sketches: (2-page limit, each) Provide a biographical
sketch for the PI, co-PI, and senior Personnel. The sketch should
describe the individual's academic and professional history and may
list up to five products most closely related to the proposed project;
and up to five other significant products, whether or not related to
the proposed project. In choosing what to include, emphasize
information that will be helpful in understanding the strengths,
qualifications, and specific impact the individual brings to the user
facility site project. See instructions in the NSF Grant Proposal
Guide.
Budget: Proposing institutions must provide annual budgets for each
year of five years for their user facility site proposals. The FastLane
system will automatically fill out the cumulative five-year budget. A
submitting institution proposal is limited to receiving a maximum award
of $2.0 million per year. The involvement of any other participating
institution sites in the proposal must be included as subawards, and
must also provide annual budgets. The major portion of NSF funds should
be budgeted for operation and staffing of the user facility. NSF funds
may also be budgeted for associated purposes including education and
outreach activities and, when appropriate, for acquisition or
development of necessary instrumentation, tools, or processes. NSF
funds may not be budgeted for research purposes, with the exception of
social and ethical implications studies.
Budget Justification (6-page limit): Provide a detailed justification
for the funds requested in the major budget categories for the
individual proposed site. This is important to enable NSF to perform a
cost analysis for each individual item of cost. For any other
participating sites included as subawards, provide an additional 3-page
detailed justification for each. Describe the proposed allocation of
funds with sufficient clarity to show how resources will be utilized in
carrying out the proposed activities. For any instrument or other item
requested in the first year, include sufficient specificity in the
description, with explanation of the need, and any provision for
maintenance and operating expenses.
Current and Pending Support: Provide for PI and co-PIs.
Facilities, Equipment and other Resources (5-page limit): Provide an
aggregated description of the internal and external resources, both
physical and personnel, that the institution and any collaborators will
provide to the project that will enable an assessment of the adequacy
to perform the proposed effort. Such information must be provided in
this section, in lieu of other parts of the proposal. The description
should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable
financial information. Describe the commitment of the institution to
providing the necessary infrastructure, including laboratory, clean
room, common space, and sharing of equipment, in support of external
user communities. Describe the distinguishing fabrication and
characterization tools, instrumentation, and processes that are
available for the intended areas of focus, including the ability to
accommodate and develop nonstandard processes and materials. Some
proposing institutions may provide unique characterization tools and
capabilities such as wet or gas-phase processing methods that do not
need a clean room environment. Discuss plans for acquisition, where
necessary, of new equipment, tools, and supporting technologies that
will position and maintain their facilities at the frontier. Describe
the provision for modeling and simulation tools in support of the
fabrication and characterization processes. Provide details of existing
or proposed resource commitments from other organizations, such as
government, industry, private foundations, and international
institutions that will contribute to operation of the facility.
Supplementary Documentation: Submit official supporting letters that
verify resource commitments by the institution and by any other
participating institutions or organizations. Submit a plan for data
management and sharing of the products of research (3-page limit), and
a postdoctoral mentoring plan (1-page limit, if applicable).
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is
prohibited.
C. Due Dates
* Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's
local time):
February 02, 2015
* Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
April 03, 2015
D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed
technical instructions available at:
[40]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
[41]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: [42]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:
[43]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 [44]Exhibit III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is
available on the NSF website at:
[45]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 [46]Investing in
Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation's Future: NSF
Strategic Plan for 2014-2018. 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 strategic objectives 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 must recruit, train, and prepare a
diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and
participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to
the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research
under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and
engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing
in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching
and learning.
NSF's mission calls for the broadening of 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.
([47]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 [48]GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a
proposal.
When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what
the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do
it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue
if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical
aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make
broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate
all proposals against two criteria:
* Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses
the potential to advance knowledge; and
* Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the
potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of
specific, desired societal outcomes.
The following elements should be considered in the review for both
criteria:
1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or
across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
b. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader
Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore
creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned,
well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan
incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to
conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the
home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the
proposed activities?
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself,
through the activities that are directly related to specific research
projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are
complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific
knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally
relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full
participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented
minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM);
improved STEM education and educator development at any level;
increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science
and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society;
development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce;
increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved
national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United
States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the
Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as
appropriate.
Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
In responding to the above NSF review criteria, reviewers will be asked
to place emphasis on the following additional criteria for individual
site proposals:
* Strength of fabrication and characterization capabilities provided,
including those for a specific focus on subfields.
* Commitment of the institution to providing the necessary
infrastructure for the shared user facility.
* Relevance of modeling and simulation capabilities supporting
fabrication and characterization.
* Quality of educational experiences afforded, including attention to
broadening participation.
* Quality of plans for outreach and knowledge dissemination.
* Quality of plans for inclusion of social and ethical implications
studies, if applicable.
* Strength of supportive internal research programs and faculty.
* Effectiveness of management structure, plans, and ability to ensure
high-quality external user services.
* Appropriateness of plans for assessment and metrics of site
performance and impact, and for determining future needs.
* Appropriateness of the budget for accomplishing the work set forth
in the proposal.
B. Review and Selection Process
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be
reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, or Reverse Site Review.
The review process will involve a combination of adhoc mail and panel
review followed by a reverse site review panel.
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
Acquisition and Cooperative Support, Cooperative Support Branch 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 cooperative 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 Acquisition and Cooperative Support,
Cooperative Support Branch. 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
[49]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 [50]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
[51]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
TBD - Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions:
Cooperative Agreement - Financial and Administrative Terms and
Conditions for Large Facilities apply.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year awards, 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 an award , 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
[52]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
Post-award oversight will consist of an annual review by a
reverse-site-review panel of external experts at NSF, although some
on-site reviews may be held. A Business Systems Review will be held
once within the five-year period of the award. The awardee will submit
comprehensive annual project reports to NSF in advance of each annual
review. The annual project reports will contain a program plan and
budget for the next-year's funding increment.
Cooperative Agreement - Financial and Administrative Terms and
Conditions for Large Facilities apply.
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:
* Lawrence Goldberg, ENG/ECCS, telephone: (703) 292-5373, email:
[53]lgoldber@nsf.gov
* Guebre X. Tessema, MPS/DMR, telephone: (703) 292-4935, email:
[54]gtessema@nsf.gov
* Michelle Bushey, MPS/CHE, telephone: (703) 292-4938, email:
[55]mbushey@nsf.gov
* Sally O'Connor, BIO/DBI, telephone: (703) 292-4552, email:
[56]socconor@nsf.gov
* Sankar Basu, CISE/CCF, telephone: (703) 292-7843, email:
[57]sabasu@nsf.gov
* David Lambert, GEO/EAR, telephone: (703) 292-4736, email:
[58]dlambert@nsf.gov
* Frederick Kronz, SBE/SES, telephone: (703) 292-7283, email:
[59]fkronz@nsf.gov
* David Brown, EHR/DUE, telephone: (703) 292-8831, email:
[60]drbrown@nsf.gov
* Graham Harrison, OIIA/ISE, telephone: (703) 292-7252, email:
[61]gharriso@nsf.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
* FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail:
[62]fastlane@nsf.gov.
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
* Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational
Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from
Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please
contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail:
[63]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 [64]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
[65]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 mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov
may be obtained at [66]http://www.grants.gov.
ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency
created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42
USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the
progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity,
and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of
science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and
engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to
more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems,
businesses, informal science organizations and other research
organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about
one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic
research.
NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research,
education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are
funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand
applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency
operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research
Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and
Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative
research between universities and industry, US participation in
international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational
activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities
provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons
with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal
Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of
these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf
(TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that
enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the
Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD
may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800)
877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at
(703) 292-5111.
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific
progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and
cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences,
mathematics, and engineering.
To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download
copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit
the NSF Website at [67]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: [68]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,
[69]NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated
Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and [70]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
[71]Policies and Important Links
|
[72]Privacy | [73]FOIA | [74]Help | [75]Contact NSF | [76]Contact Web
Master | [77]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
[78]Text Only
References
1. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#toc
2. mailto:lgoldber@nsf.gov
3. mailto:gtessema@nsf.gov
4. mailto:mbushey@nsf.gov
5. mailto:socconor@nsf.gov
6. mailto:sabasu@nsf.gov
7. mailto:dlambert@nsf.gov
8. mailto:fkronz@nsf.gov
9. mailto:drbrown@nsf.gov
10. mailto:gharriso@nsf.gov
11. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
12. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide
13. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#summary
14. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#pgm_intr_txt
15. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#pgm_desc_txt
16. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#awd_info
17. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#elig
18. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#prep
19. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#prep
20. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#budg_cst_shr_txt
21. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#dates
22. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#fastlane
23. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#review
24. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#reviewcrit
25. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#reviewprot
26. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#awardadmin
27. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#awardnotify
28. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#grantcond
29. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#reportreq
30. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#cont
31. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15519/nsf15519.htm#othpgm
32. http://www.nano.gov/node/1113.
33. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_fifth_nni_review_oct2014_final.pdf
34. https://www.src.org/newsroom/src-in-the-news/2014/656/
35. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
36. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
37. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/
pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide
38. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
39. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
40. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm
41. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov
42. http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html
43. mailto:support@grants.gov
44. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/
pappguide/nsf14001/gpg_3ex1.pdf
45. http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/
46. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14043/nsf14043.pdf
47. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/
pappguide/nsf15001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di
48. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/
pappguide/nsf15001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di
49. http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/
award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF
50. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
51. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag
52. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag
53. mailto:lgoldber@nsf.gov
54. mailto:gtessema@nsf.gov
55. mailto:mbushey@nsf.gov
56. mailto:socconor@nsf.gov
57. mailto:sabasu@nsf.gov
58. mailto:dlambert@nsf.gov
59. mailto:fkronz@nsf.gov
60. mailto:drbrown@nsf.gov
61. mailto:gharriso@nsf.gov
62. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov
63. mailto:support@grants.gov
64. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/outreach.jsp
65. https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/
USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_id=USNSF_179
66. http://www.grants.gov/
67. http://www.nsf.gov/
68. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
69. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/
SOR_PA_NSF-50_Principal_Investigator_Proposal_File.pdf
70. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/
SOR_PA_NSF-51_Reviewer_Proposal_File.pdf
71. http://www.nsf.gov/policies
72. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/privacy.jsp
73. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/foia.jsp
74. http://www.nsf.gov/help/
75. http://www.nsf.gov/help/contact.jsp
76. mailto:webmaster@nsf.gov
77. http://www.nsf.gov/help/sitemap.jsp
78. http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/referrer