received by the NSF Proposal Processing Unit are assigned to the appropriate
NSF program for acknowledgment and, if they meet NSF requirements,
for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer,
or educator serving as a NSF Program Officer, and usually by three
to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular
fields represented by the proposal. Proposers are invited to suggest
names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review
the proposal or persons they would prefer not review the proposal.
These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection
process at the Program Officer’s discretion. Program Officers may
obtain comments from assembled review panels or from site visits before
recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review
recommendations for awards.
The National Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating proposals at its meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB 97-72). The criteria are designed to be useful and relevant across NSF's many different programs, however, NSF will employ special criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The merit review criteria are listed below. Following each criterion are potential considerations that the reviewer may employ in the evaluation. These are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. Each reviewer will be asked to address only those that are relevant to the proposal and for which he/she is qualified to make judgments.
Criterion 1: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?
Criterion 2: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?
PIs should address the following elements in their proposal to provide reviewers with the information necessary to respond fully to the above-described NSF merit review criteria. NSF staff will give these elements careful consideration in making funding decisions.
Integration of Research and Education
One of the principal strategies in support of NSF’s goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.
Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- are 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.
NSF recognizes that minor, non-content-related errors might occur in proposal development and that these errors may not be discovered until after the proposal submission to NSF. To enable organizations to correct such errors, FastLane provides a 60-minute "grace period," that begins immediately following proposal submission. This grace period does not extend the proposal deadline (e.g., if a proposal deadline is 5:00 p.m. proposer’s local time, the proposal must be submitted by 5:00 p.m., and administrative corrections are allowed until 6:00 p.m., proposer local time). During this grace period, authorized sponsored project office personnel are allowed to make administrative corrections to Cover Sheet (NSF Form 1207) and Budget (NSF Form 1030) data. These corrections do not include changes to identified PIs, co-PIs, or other senior project personnel. Access to the Administrative Corrections utility is through the "Submit Proposals to NSF" function on the FastLane Web site at: <http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/>.
In the event of a significant development (e.g., research findings, changed circumstances, unavailability of PI or other key personnel, etc.) that might materially affect the outcome of the review of a pending proposal, the proposer should contact the Program Officer to whom the proposal is assigned to discuss the issue. Submitting additional information must not be used as a means of circumventing page limitations or stated deadlines.
Before recommending whether or not NSF should support a particular project, the NSF Program Officer may, subject to certain constraints outlined below, engage in discussions with the proposing PIs.
Negotiating budgets generally involves discussing a lower or higher amount of total support for the proposed project. The NSF Program Officer may suggest reducing or eliminating costs for specific budget items that are clearly unnecessary or unreasonable for the activities to be undertaken, especially when the review process supports such changes; however, this would generally not include faculty salaries, salary rates, fringe benefits, or tuition. Note: indirect cost rates are not subject to negotiation. The NSF Program Officers may discuss with PIs the "bottom line" award amount, i.e., the total NSF funding that will be recommended for a project. NSF Program Officers may not renegotiate cost sharing or other institutional commitments.
When such discussions result in a budget reduction of 10% or more from the amount originally proposed, a corresponding reduction should be made in the scope of the project, unless the NSF Program Officer, PI and organization clearly agree that the project as proposed can be carried out at a lesser level of support from NSF with no expectation of any uncompensated organizational contribution beyond that formally reflected as cost sharing. It is anticipated that FastLane capability for submission of this information will be available later this fiscal year.
Such reductions in scope or agreement to carry out the project as originally proposed must be signed by the PI and the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) and be submitted to the NSF Program Officer. By signing and submitting this modification to the proposal, the PI and AOR are certifying the accuracy and completeness of the information provided.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. Normally, final programmatic approval is at the division level. Because of the large volume of proposals, this review and consideration process may take up to six months. Large or particularly complex proposals may require additional review and processing time. If the program recommendation is for an award and final division or other programmatic approval is obtained, then the recommendation goes to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. The Division of Grants and Agreements generally makes awards to academic institutions within 30 days after the program division makes its recommendation. Grants being made to organizations that have not received a NSF award within the preceding two years, or involving special situations (such as coordination with another Federal agency or a private funding source), cooperative agreements, and other unusual arrangements may require additional review and processing time.
Proposers are cautioned that only an appointed Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF or the Government should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSFProgram Officer. A PI or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants Officer does so at its own risk.
When a decision has been made (whether an award or a declination), verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the PI. Proposers may also request and obtain any other releasable material in NSF’s file on their proposal. Everything in the file except information that directly identifies either reviewers or other pending or declined proposals is usually releasable to the proposer.
|GPG Contents | Kit Contents | Previous | Next|