Navigating the National Science Foundation: A Primer and Refresher on NSF Priorities,

Programs, Policies, and Processes

MSU Sponsored Programs Administration

Presentation Overview

• Priorities –Mission, strategic plan, vision, and core values

• Programs – Organizational structure and funding mechanisms by type

• Policies – Administrative tools and guidance

• Processes – life cycle of a project, review, Fastlane

• Other – Tips from POs, successful PIs, and SPA

I. Priorities

Mission & Vision• Mission – To promote the progress of science; to

advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense.

~ NSF Act of 1950

• Vision – A Nation that creates and exploits new concepts in science and engineering and provides global leadership in research and education.

~ NSF Strategic Plan 2014-2018

The Basics:• An independent Federal agency

• NSF has no research facilities of its own – it is a granting agency foremost.

• NSF is the only U.S. federal agency with a mandate to support all the non-medical fields of science and engineering research.

• Annual budget: Generally 7 billion ($7.2 billion FY14)

• Receives approx. 50K proposals each year; approx. 11K are funded (20%)

• NSF provides about 24% of all federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

Source: NSF Strategic Plan 2014-2018

NSF Factoids:• FY 13 funds supported approx. 319,000 people including

researchers, post docs, trainees, teachers, and students.

• Infrastructure includes over 2,000 institutions including colleges and universities, research vessels, observatories, particle accelerators, seismic observatories, U. S research stations in Antarctica, advanced cyber infrastructure and more.

• Over 200 Nobel Prize winners received NSF support

• Approximately 48,000 students have been supported by NSF Graduate Fellowships since 1952.

NSF Funding Landscape

NSF Funding Landscape

NSF Funding Landscape

NSF’s Core Values

Scientific excellence

Organizational excellence

Learning

Inclusiveness

Accountability for public benefit

Merit Review Criteria

• What is the INTELLECTUAL MERIT of the proposed activity?

• What are the BROADER IMPACTS of the proposed activity?

Intellectual Merit

1) How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?

2) How well qualified is the proposer to conduct the project?

3) To what extent does the proposed activity explore creative, original, or POTENTIALLY TRANSFORMATIVE CONCEPTS?

4) How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

5) Is there sufficient access to necessary resources?

Transformative ResearchInvolves ideas, discoveries, or tools that radically change our understanding of an important existing scientific or engineering concept or educational practice or leads to the creation of a new paradigm or field of science, engineering, or education. Such research challenges current understanding or provides pathways to new frontiers.

• Characteristics of transformative research are that it:• Challenges conventional wisdom,• Leads to unexpected insights that enable new techniques or

methodologies, and/or• Redefines the boundaries of science, engineering, or education.

Broader Impacts1) How well does the activity advance discovery and

understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning?

2) How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation

of women and underrepresented groups? (“Diversity”)

3) To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research

and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks

and partnerships?

4) Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?

5) What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

Examples:http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf

Review considerations for IM & BI• Increased economic competitiveness of US• Development of a globally competitive STEM workforce• Increased participation of women, persons with disabilities, and

underrepresented minorities in STEM• Increased partnerships between academia and industry• Improved prek-12 STEM education and teacher development• Improved undergraduate STEM education• Increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science

and technology• Increased national security• Enhanced infrastructure for research and education, including facilities,

instrumentation, networks, and partnerships

How does NSF monitor itself?NSF relies on the judgment of external experts to maintain high standards of program management, to provide advice for continuous improvement of NSF performance, and to ensure openness to the research and education community served by the Foundation.

Committee of Visitors (COV) reviews provide NSF with external expert judgments in two areas:

o assessments of the quality and integrity of program operations and program-level technical and managerial matters pertaining to proposal decisions; and

o comments on how the outputs and outcomes generated by awardees have contributed to the attainment of NSF's mission and strategic outcome goals.

Ref: http://www.nsf.gov/eng/general/cov/

II. Programs

What does NSF Fund?• Research proposals

• Capacity-building proposals –ex. PUIs

• Equipment proposals (major instrumentation, etc.)

• Major Research Equipment and Facilities (rarely)

• Collections development

• Conferences, symposia, and workshops

• International travel –polar, etc.

• Facilitation proposals for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED)

• Joint solicitations with other agencies

Sources of NSF funding

NSF Organization• Discipline-based Directorates (7)

• Biological Sciences (BIO)• Computer & Information Sciences & Engineering (CISE)• Education & Human Resources (EHR)• Engineering (ENG)• Geosciences (GEO)• Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MPS)• Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE)

• Administrative Directorates (2)

• Budget, Finance, & Award Management (BFA)• Information Resource Management (OIRM)

NSF Organization

Directorates Divisions within each Directorate

Sections within each Division

Programs within each Section

Program Officers for each Program

Sample Directorate Chart - CISE

Sample Directorate Chart - BIO

Categories of funding opportunities• Dear Colleague LetterGenerally to draw attention to upcoming opportunities (including competitions for supplemental awards) or to notify of changes to an existing policy or document .

• Program DescriptionBroad, general descriptions of programs and activities in NSF divisions/directorates. Available on NSF website.

• Program AnnouncementFormal, publications announcing programs. Similar to Program Description in that a PA includes a PD. These include the generic eligibility and proposal prep instructions specified in the GPG.

• Program SolicitationFormal publications that encourage the submission of proposals in specific program areas of interest to NSF. More focused than program announcements, and typically apply for a limited period of time. Competition information (including specific review criteria) is precisely defined.

Types of Submissions

• Letter of Intent (LOI) – please notify SPA!

• Preliminary Proposal – FastLane

• Full Proposal - FastLane

Levels of award• Check solicitation… many funding opportunities

come in phases or levels

• Note level, track, or phase type/number on SPA’s IAS

• Eligibility, funding amount, duration, etc., is affected by type

Key Opportunities by Directorate

• Biological Sciences (BIO) – 5 BIO DivisionsBiological Infrastructure; Environmental Biology; Emerging Frontiers; Integrative Organismal Systems; Molecular and Cellular Biosciences

• Computer Information Science & Engineering (CISE) – 4 CISE Divisions

Advanced Cyberinfrastructure; Computing and Communications Foundations; Computer and Network Systems; Information & Intelligent Systems

• Education & Human Resources (EHR) – 4 DivisionsGraduate Education; Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings; Undergraduate Education; Human Resource Development

• Engineering (ENG) – 6 DivisionsChemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems; Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation; Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems; Engineering Education and Centers; Emerging Frontiers and Multidisciplinary Activities; Industrial Innovation and Partnerships

Key Opportunities by Directorate cont.

Key Opportunities by Directorate cont.• Geosciences (GEO) – 4 Divisions

– Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences; Earth Sciences; Ocean Sciences; Polar Programs

• Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MPS) – 4 Div.

– Astronomical Sciences; Chemistry, Materials Research; Physics; Office of Multidisciplinary Activities

• Social, Behavioral, & Economic Sciences (SBE) - 4

– Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics; Social and Economic Sciences; Multidisciplinary Activities

How to locate opportunities by discipline

www.nsf.gov

Funding - “Find funding”

Search by program area, special programs, A-Z index, or upcoming due dates

Types of programs/awards available Foundation-wide:

• RAPID• EAGER• CAREER• REU• Ideas Lab• Conference• Equipment (Instrumentation & Major Equipment and Facilities)• Development of Centers• Travel• FASED• Supplemental Funding Requests• Collaborative Proposals (single and multiple organization submission)

RAPID: Grants for Rapid Response ResearchRapid release of funds and expedited merit review

having a severe urgency with regard to availability of, or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events

Requirements:

• Program Manager approval

• Budget consistent with project scope and existing programmatic activities (up to $200K for 1 year)

• Require internal review/with optional external input

• 2-5 page project description

• No cost extensions/supplements follow existing NSF policies

EAGER:EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research

Encourages exploratory work in its early stages on untested, but potentially transformative, research ideas or approaches.

“High Risk-High Payoff" • Radically different approaches, new expertise, or novel disciplinary or

interdisciplinary perspectives• Budget consistent with project scope and existing programmatic

activities (up to $300K for 2 years)• Program Officer approval needed:

PI needs to convince appropriateness for EAGER submission vs “regular” NSF proposals

• Require internal review• 5-8 page project description• No cost extensions/supplements follow existing NSF policies

CAREER – Faculty Early Career Development Program • Foundation-wide activity that offers the National Science Foundation's most prestigious awards in

support of junior faculty who exemplify the role of teacher-scholars through outstanding research, excellent education and the integration of education and research within the context of the mission of their organizations

• Usually due in July (deadline by Directorate)

• Approx. 400 awards each year; minimum of $400,000 total over 5 year period

• One application per PI per year; no more than 3 applications

• PI Must:1. Hold a doctoral degree by the deadline date in a field supported by NSF;2. Be untenured until October 1 following the deadline; and3. Have not previously received a CAREER award (prior or concurrent Federal support for other

types of awards or for non-duplicative research does not preclude eligibility);ANDBy October 1st following the deadline for submission of CAREER proposals: Be employed in a tenure-track (or tenure-track-equivalent) position as an assistant professor (or equivalent title) at an accredited institution

REU: Research Experiences for Undergraduates

• Supports active research participation by undergraduate students in any of the areas of research funded by the National Science Foundation. REU projects involve students in meaningful ways in ongoing research programs or in research projects specifically designed for the REU program.

• 1. REU Sites - independent proposals to initiate and conduct projects that engage a number of students in research. May be based in a single discipline or academic department or may offer interdisciplinary or multi-department research opportunities with a coherent theme.

• 2. REU Supplements - may be included as a component of proposals for new or renewal NSF grants or cooperative agreements or may be requested for ongoing NSF-funded research projects.

REU continued• Almost $70 billion awarded in FY 13

• Approximately 1,800 awards

• Encourages international programs

• Offers specialized partnerships

• Encourages partnerships with k-12 teachers (RET)

• Proposals must address student recruitment and selection AND mentoring plans

Equipment• Research Instrumentation (MRI)The program provides organizations with opportunities to acquire major instrumentation that supports the research and research training goals of the organization and that may be used by other researchers regionally or nationally.

Each MRI proposal may request support for the acquisition (Track 1) or development (Track 2) of a single research instrument for shared inter- and/or intra-organizational use.

The program does not fund research projects or provide ongoing support for operating or maintaining facilities or centers.

Instrument acquisition or development proposals that request funds from NSF in the range $100,000-$4 million may be accepted from any MRI-eligible organization.

• Major Research Equipment/Facilities Construction - contact PO

Development of Centers• Centers focus on integrative learning and discovery and

demonstrate leadership in broadening participation through focused investments in a diverse set of partner organizations and individuals. In doing so, they draw upon, and contribute to, the development of the Nation's full intellectual talent.

• Most Center awards are limited to a maximum duration of ten years and are often subject to mid-course external merit review.

• Must contact appropriate disciplinary NSF Program Officer

Conferences• Conferences will be supported only if equivalent results cannot be

obtained at regular meetings of professional societies.

• Proposals for conferences should generally be made at least a year in advance of the scheduled date.

• NSF funds are not to be spent for meals and coffee breaks for intramural meetings of an organization or any of its components, including, but not limited to, laboratories, departments and centers, as a direct cost.

• Proposal must include description of plans to identify resources for child care and other types of family care at the conference site to allow individuals with family care responsibilities to attend. Attendance for some participants will be dependent on the availability of such resources. This information should help enable attendees to make arrangements for family care, as needed.

Travel Awards• A university, professional society, or other non-profit organization

may apply for funds to enable it to coordinate and support U.S. participation in one or more international scientific meeting(s) abroad.

• Group travel awards are encouraged as the primary means of support for international travel. Group travel proposals may request support only for the international travel costs of the proposed activity.

• Proposals submitted for this purpose should address the same items as those indicated for conferences with plans for composition and recruitment of the travel group. Information on planned speakers should be provided

• Extensive documentation is required.

FASED:Facilitation Awards for Scientists & Engineers w/Disabilities

• Submitted as a supplement request to new proposals or existing awards to remove barriers to participation in research

• Evaluated case-by-case

• Intended for specialized items specific to the research; standard accommodations such as ramps, hearing aids, etc. not allowed.

• May include purchase or modification of equipment, or assistance

Supplemental Funding Requests• Special circumstances require additional support

• Should be submitted directly to the PO via FastLane a minimum of 2 months prior to need.

• Awarded as an amendment to the award at PO’s discretion with appropriate justification

• Proposal must include: summary, justification, budget and budget justification highlighting the use by category of additional funding.

Policies

NSF PAPPGProposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide

Part I – Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Part II – Award Administration Guide (AAG)

*Typically updated annually each DecemberEach new iteration places the newest information at the front for ease of access.

PAPPG Highlights• Latest edition (Dec. 2014) was amended to

reflect implementation of Uniform Guidance

• PAPPG delineates the roles of the administrative units and Directorates of NSF: – Institution & Award Support

– Acquisition and Cooperative Support

– Financial Management

– General Counsel

– Diversity and Inclusion

– Office of Inspector General

Formatting and Deadlines (GPG)• Always defer to the solicitation for specific formatting guidance

• NSF standard: single column, 10-12pt. font, one-inch margins, line spacing of less than six lines to 1-inch, preferred font styles

• Readability is KEY! Smaller fonts are allowed for tables, charts, formulae.

• Deadlines are by 5:00 p.m. proposer’s local time unless stated otherwise. Deadlines on weekends or Federal holidays are extended to the following Monday.

• Target dates allow proposal to still be accepted; Deadlines are firm. Proposals not meeting deadlines will be returned without review.

• Special considerations include natural disaster, closure of NSF

Personnel items (GPG)• Senior Personnel Salary• NSF views research as a normal function of faculty members at intuitions of higher education. As

such, compensation for time normally spent on research within the term of appointment is included within the faculty member's regular organizational salary.

• Salary compensation is limited to two months of regular salary in any one year. (can be rebudgeted internally after award)

• Biosketches• NSF requires a 2-page maximum biosketch (in NSF format) on all senior personnel (PI and Co-I)• Must include 1) Professional Preparation, 2) Appointments, 3) Products, 4) Synergistic Activities, 5)

Collaborators and Other Affiliations. NO PERSONAL INFORMATION

• Current & Pending Support• PI and Co-Is must provide info on current and pending support for ALL ongoing projects and

proposals – INCLUDING the PROPOSAL being submitted. Even if the PI receives no salary from the project, if time is involved, it must be included.

Allowable and Unallowable Costs (GPG)

YES! NOPE!Direct Costs:• Salaries and fringe benefits• Equipment• Travel• Participant Support• Materials and Supplies• Publication expenses• Consultants• Computer services• Sub awards• Visas*Indirect Costs

Cost sharing (unless explicitly stated)EntertainmentMeals and Coffee BreaksAlcoholic Beverages

Award Acceptance and Performance Monitoring (AAG)

• Definitions of grant period and No Cost ExtensionStart and End Dates are specified in award document and determine the GRANT PERIOD: the dates during which expenses may be charged to the grant. A one-time No Cost Extension may be requested for up to 12 months without PO approval. Justification must be provided.

• Performance reportingNSF requires regular, timely reports for all awards. Annual project reports and final project reports must be submitted. The final report is not necessarily cumulative. Following award closeout, PIs must submit a report of project outcomes for the general public – must not contain proprietary info.

• changes in personnel and scope of workGrantees MUST notify the PO if there are changes in methodology, significant delays, change of scope, unusual interest, long-term disengagement of PI, transfer or substitution of PI, etc.

• Records retention and auditRecords must be retained for 3 years from closeout date and be available for audit as required.

Financial Requirements (AAG)• Pre-award costs - allowable up to 90 days with notification from PO

at institution's risk

• Cost sharing – Voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. If no person months will be requested for Senior Personnel, they must not be named in the budget under personnel. Mandatory cost sharing is rare. Check solicitation.

• Indirect costs – Participant support costs are not included in the indirect cost base.

• Close-out - Grants are administratively closed after receipt of the Final Project Report and after determination that any other administrative requirements in the grant have been met.

Grantee Standards (AAG)• Responsible Conduct of Research – outlines the institution’s responsibilities to provide RCR training and oversight

• Financial Conflict of Interest – Details expectations that institutions have clearly written policies regarding grant personnel’s “significant financial interests” and perceived interests in project outcomes

Research Misconduct – explains roles of NSF and institutions to prevent and investigate instances of falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, etc.

• Equipment management – prescribes standards for management and deposition of project-related equipment

• Procurement standards – explains processes for fair acquisition of equipment and definitions for equipment vs. commodities, as well as right to title and title transfer issues

Misc. (AAG)• Certifications and assurancesfully explains terms of award are contingent on agreement to all applicable laws and considerations (ie. Civil Rights Act, Title IX, EEO, etc.)

• Living organisms (human, vertebrates, Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules)

provides guidance on policies and laws pertaining to use of human subjects, animals, biologics, etc.

• Intellectual Property and rights to datareviews function of the Bayh-Dole Act and specifies NSF’s stake in rights to innovations resulting from funded proposals.

Processes

Finding Funding• NSF.gov – general and program pages

• Grants.gov

• ORED and SPA resources

• Considerations for eligibility and limited submission

Proposal Development• What is the potential for the proposed activity to:

a. advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (IM); andb. benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (BI)?

• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, original, or potentially transformative concepts?

• 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?

• How well-qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities?

• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Proposal PreparationParts of the proposal1. Cover Sheet – populated in FastLane2. Project Summary (abstract) – ONE PAGE3. Table of Contents – generated by FastLane4. Project Description (narrative) – 15 pages strictly enforced; may include tables and

charts5. References Cited – no limit; must include only citations, no additional info from

narrative6. Biographical Sketch(es) – two pages each7. Budget and Budget Justification – One budget per year of support & cumulative (three

pages each) Subawards must have separate budgets and justifications up to three pages.

8. Current and Pending Support – no prescribed limit9. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources – concise, aggregated description of all

internal and external resources available and directly applicable10. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

a. Data Management Planb. Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan (if applicable)

The Importance of Merit Review Criteria

“Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria within the Project Summary.” - Grant Proposal Guide, Ch. III

“(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.”

Examples of Broader Impacts• Full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and

underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

• Development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce• 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• Increased partnerships among academia, industry, and others• Improved national security• Increased economic competitiveness of the United States• Enhanced infrastructure for research and education

Proposal Submission

• Fastlane registration and use

• SPA information

NSF FastLane• Sign up

• Managing your account

• Form from SPA

• Granting SPA access/review/submit

• How SPA notifies you that it is done, etc.

• Notifications for NCE, transfers, budget, etc.

Multi-institutional collaborations

• Single (lead) submission

• Multi submission

• Implications in FastLane

Proposal Review Process

The Proposal Review Process

Remember:Only those proposals with a majority of “Excellents” are likely to be funded;

PDs have some flexibility

• “Excellent”• “Very Good”• “Good” (not good!)• “Fair” • “Poor”

Individual rankings: Panel recommendation:

Recommend*panels only make recommendations; Project Managers decide what to fund!

Do not

recommend

Methods of review• Ad hoc reviews -- requests for review of a single proposalby a number (3 to 6 or so) of experts (often specialists) inthe topic/methods/locale of the research.

• Advisory panel review -- evaluation of multipleproposals by a number (6 to 30 or so) of individuals withvarying degrees of expertise -- often more generalist thanspecialist. (2 to 4 panelists may write reviews before thepanel meeting.)

• Ad hoc and panel review -- evaluation of multipleproposals with panels evaluating both ad hoc andpanelist reviews.

• Program officer review (without external review) – Used only in a very limited set of cases.

What happens in a Panel Review?• Directors, Officers, Panelists, and Reviewers each have a

role.

• Reviewers are people too!

• Panelists may or may not have expertise in your program area.

• PO has a HEAVY work load and manages review panels.

• Group dynamics of panel may affect outcome

• PO has final say

What Factors Enter Into a Program Officer's Recommendation?

• Recommendations of the panel(s) and reviewers.• Portfolio balance across a range of factors, such as

topical emphasis, innovativeness, demographic and institutional factors, and the fit of projects with broader programmatic and NSF goals.

• Potential for obtaining complementary funding from other sources, such as co-reviewing programs and EPSCoR or topical matching fund pools.

Issues That May Arise When POs Are Ready to Recommend an Award

• Responses to reviewer, panel, and/or PO uncertainties (usually via an addendum)

• Certification of IRB and/or IACUC approval of relevant research plans.

• Revisions or clarifications of data-management plans.

• Revised budgets (sometimes with hard ceilings for what can be provided, sometimes subject to some negotiation based on project need).

• Other responsibilities the PO has when it's time to write up the funding recommendation and start the proposal through the formal approval process.

Not funded. Now what?

• Chin up! Funding rates are low for first timers < 10%

• Read and share reviews to understand feedback

• Be on a review panel

• Contact PO with questions (NOT immediately, though)

• Begin preparing re-submission – Third Time’s a Charm >40%

Tips and Tricks

Advice from investigators:• Contact your PO early and often

• Visit if possible

• Send your draft or idea to your directorate and peers for feedback

• Send draft to non-experts for ease of understanding

• Start as early as possible! Work with department and SPA

Advice from POs/reviewers:• Write clearly and follow all formatting guidance

• Use headers and organization in narrative – limit jargon

• Consider innovative ways to integrate research and education; utilize underrepresented populations

• Make sure budget is appropriate for scope – less isn’t always more.

Advice from SPA:• Awards are made to the institution, not the PI.

• Three-day rule

• Contact your PO early and often!

• Use resources to locate peers with proposal experience/examples

• Transferring awards

• Awards will not be made if RCR is incomplete or IRB approval is not granted upon award.

How can we help you?Questions?

Stephanie Hyche Becky Bassett shyche@spa.msstate.edu bbassett@spa.msstate.edu

662-325-7395 662-325-0542

Office of Sponsored Programs Administrationwww.spa.msstate.edu