NSF 25-548: Accelerating Research Translation (ART)

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies and similar organizations located in the U.S. that are directly associated with educational or research activities.

• Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the U.S., acting on behalf of their faculty members. Each IHE that is part of a university system is eligible to submit a separate proposal if it has its own leadership team, sponsored research office (SRO) or equivalent, and own governing structure.

  Please note additional eligibility requirements stated for submission of proposals to different Tracks noted in this solicitation.

Who May Serve as PI:

The PI, Co-PIs, or any other senior/key personnel must hold an appointment at an organization that is eligible to submit as described under "Who May Submit Proposals." 

Having a representative of the IHE’s technology transfer office (if in place) or its equivalent unit as designated by its administrative regulations, bylaws, or otherwise, having responsibility to manage research intellectual property (IP) serve as a PI or at least a Co-PI is strongly encouraged.

Researchers with primary appointments at overseas branch campuses of U.S. institutions of higher education are not eligible. 

Researchers from foreign academic institutions who contribute essential expertise to the project may participate as senior/key personnel or collaborators but may not receive NSF support. 

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

• An eligible IHE can submit a maximum of one proposal for Track 1 or 2 (but not both). 
• For Tracks 3, 4, and 5, an eligible organization can submit a maximum of one proposal per Track.  
• Applicants eligible for Tracks 1 and 2 cannot submit proposals for Tracks 3, 4 and 5 and vice versa.
• A Mentoring Institution (MI) for Track 2 is eligible to submit a proposal for Tracks 3, 4, or 5.
• If more than one proposal is submitted from an institution in a specific Track, the first proposal submitted from that institution will be considered, and remaining proposals for that Track will be returned without review.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 

• There are no restrictions or limits.

Additional Eligibility Info:

Please note additional eligibility requirements stated for submission of proposals to different Tracks noted in this solicitation.  

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the  NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at:  https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from  nsfpubs@nsf.gov. The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• 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: ( https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). 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) 292-8134 or by e-mail from  nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via Research.gov. PAPPG Chapter II.E.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 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 PAPPG instructions.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. 

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: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). 

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following: 

· Collaborative Proposals: Collaborative proposals arranged as separate submissions from multiple organizations will not be accepted in response to this solicitation. PAPPG Chapter II.D.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals. If multiple organizations are involved in a proposal, the submission must take the form of a single proposal from a lead institution with subawards to participating institutions. 

The following information supplements the standard PAPPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide proposal preparation guidelines: 

1. Title: The proposal title should begin with "ART Track X: XXXX", followed by a colon (:), and then the title of the project. The letter “ X: XXXX” shown here should be replaced by Track number (1-5) and the acronym for the Track. For example, a proposal submitted to Track 2, the title will begin with “ART Track 2: GROW:”.   

2. Project Summary and Keywords: A one-page Project Summary should be provided, which consists of three parts: (1) a project overview, (2) a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and (3) a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity. For Track 2: GROW proposals only, the last line of the Project Summary should have a list of six keywords. The first two keywords must denote the NSF Directorates that are the most relevant to the initial cohort of seed translational research projects (STRP) described in the proposal from this list: BIO, CISE, EDU, ENG, GEO, MPS, OIA, SBE. Do not include TIP as one of these Directorates. 

3. Project Description: This section is limited to a maximum of 15 pages. A proposal submitted to the ART Program must fully address all the components described in the Program Description section of this solicitation for each respective Track: 

              In addition, the following sections will also be required in the Project Description: 

Broader Impacts: The Project Description should contain a separate section labeled 'Broader Impacts'. 

4.  Results from Prior NSF Support: In cases where the PI or any Co-PI has received more than one NSF award (excluding amendments to existing awards), please report only the award most closely related to the proposal. Please refer to the PAPPG, Chapter II.D.2. 

Supplementary Documents: 

 Supplementary Documentation: The items permitted in the Supplementary Documents section are- 

1. Statement from IHE: For Tracks 1, and 2, there should be a Statement from the IHE’s Vice President or Vice Provost (or equivalent) attesting to their current research translation readiness level (RTRL) as well as the motivation and desire of the IHE to elevate the level of research translation for sustained economic and collective impact across the entire organization. This statement should be no more than 2 pages and it should describe the institution's current levels of fundamental and research translation activities, and their respective capacity and infrastructure for translational activities using multiple evidence-based methods and metrics. It should be certified by the Vice President of Research or someone in an equivalent role at the institution.  

2. Letters of Collaboration (LOC): For all Tracks, up to three (3) Letters of Collaboration (LOC) can be included and uploaded as Supplementary Documents. These letters should be from external contributors or stakeholders to the ART project activities. Each letter should be limited to one page in length. It should clearly describe how the organization providing the letter plans to make specific contributions to the ART project activities (including short- and long-term) and their unique value proposition for the project. The LOC must contain the letter writer's name, affiliation, and organization. Care should be taken so that these letters are not seen as a letter of recommendation or an endorsement. Letters of support or other forms of endorsement or recommendations are not permitted. 

3. Consolidated List of Personnel (required): For all Tracks, the Consolidated List of Personnel (CLP) is a spreadsheet listing all key personnel, subaward and collaborators, consultants, etc., involved in the project. The spreadsheet template can be downloaded from the ART program webpage.  Please read the instructions carefully. Using the Excel file template, compile information for all people identified in the proposal as: "PI or co-PI" (i.e., those listed on the cover page); "Other Senior Personnel,"; "Sub-awardee Personnel,"; or "Other Personnel" who have a biographical sketch included in the proposal; or "Collaborators" (Letters of Collaboration). Only one spreadsheet should be submitted per proposal. If you are unsure of whether to include someone in the Consolidated List of Personnel Spreadsheet, we recommend to include the person. The purpose of this document is to assist the program in managing reviewer selection. 

After the proposal is submitted and a proposal number is obtained, please email a copy of the CLP spreadsheet (as a spreadsheet and not a PDF) to art@nsf.gov. Please send this in within two business days of your proposal submission. This file should be labeled as " CLP_PI First Name_PI Last Name_Proposal Number" (e.g., CLP_Jennifer_Smith_12345). In this filename, include only the numeric part of your NSF proposal number.

4.  Graduate student and postdoctoral researcher Mentoring Plan: Each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers or graduate students must upload under “Mentoring Plan” in the supplementary documentation section of Research.gov, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. In no more than one page, the Mentoring Plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral researchers or graduate students supported by the project, regardless of whether they reside at the submitting organization, any subrecipient organization, or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted collaborative proposal. Please note that separate plans are not required for postdoctoral researchers or graduate students. The plan may, however, specify how different components of the mentoring program will be enacted for the two types of researchers. Proposers are advised that the Mentoring Plan must not be used to circumvent the 15-page Project Description limitation. The Mentoring Plan should reflect how mentoring will be appropriate for the specific roles of graduate students or postdoctoral researchers in the ART project.  

5. Data Management and Sharing Plan: In accordance with the guidance in the PAPPG, proposals must include a Data Management and Sharing Plan of no more than two pages (in the Data Management Plan section in Research.gov or as a Supplementary Document in Grants.gov). The Data Management and Sharing Plan must be substantive and specific to the project and should address all project-relevant aspects of security and data privacy.  

Checklist: 

To assist proposal preparation, the following checklist is provided as a reminder of some important items that should be checked before submitting a proposal to this solicitation. For the items marked with "(RWR)," the proposal will be returned without review if the required item is non-compliant at the submission deadline. Note that these are requirements unique to this solicitation; for other return-without-review requirements, see the PAPPG. 

• (RWR) The maximum budget shown on the Cover Sheet and on the budget, sheets must not exceed the ceiling stated for a Track in this solicitation. 

• (RWR) For Tracks 1 and 2, a statement from the IHE attesting to their current RTRL and their motivation for scaling research translation for the entire IHE be included with content as described in this section. 

• (RWR) A Consolidated List of Personnel (CLP) list submitted as a Supplementary Document must be emailed to art@nsf.gov with a subject line "CLP_PI First Name_PI Last Name_Proposal Number".

• (RWR) Collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations will not be accepted in response to this solicitation. They will be returned without review. 

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Budget Preparation Instructions:

The budget should address: 

• Salary: Salary of any staff who will assist in the scoping and/or development of ART related activities, including the principal investigator (PI) and Co-PIs, postdoctoral researchers, graduate and undergraduate students, developers, and marketing, administrative, and/or legal professionals. Time needed for training activities of personnel involved should be budgeted. 

• Project Coordinator: For Tracks 2, 4, and 5, given the multi-faceted nature of the range of activities, a full-time, experienced project manager/coordinator/facilitator should be budgeted and recruited.  For Track 3, the lead organization must budget, and recruit equivalent of a full-time staff person dedicated to meet the increased needs of providing technology transfer related services to IHEs with low RTRL.  

• Patenting Costs: For Tracks 1 and 2, direct costs of up to $100,000 total over the entire duration of the project (up to four years) may be budgeted to: a) defray internal costs incurred by awardee's technology transfer office during the evaluation and protection of STRP IP, and/or b) secure the services of one or more third-party service providers to assist in the evaluation and protection of the STRP IP. Filing fees for provisional, non-provisional and PCT applications are allowable only if paid to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). No foreign patenting costs are allowed.  

• Setup costs: Costs incurred for the organization-wide coordination and governance approach, any necessary infrastructure, market analysis, and customer-discovery activities are allowed. 

• Subawards: For Track 2, one subaward of up to 10% percent of the total proposal requested budget for the entire project (inclusive of direct and indirect costs) per year to one mentoring IHE with a well-established record for research translation related activities and a well-resourced technology transfer operation is required. This subaward will be to support activities that will be useful to the proposing institution to build and grow its capacity for research translation. Additional subawards can be made to other organization types. The total budgeted amount for all subawards must not exceed 20% of the total budget requested. For Track 3, it is expected that about 50% of the total budget will be used every project year in direct support of activities at IHEs with low RTRL to promote, entrepreneurship, IP generation (including US patent costs), and identifying opportunities for technology transfer and sustained economic impact. For Tracks 4 and 5, additional subawards can be made to other organizations as needed as long as the total cost of such sub-awards does not exceed 50% of the total budget.   

• Equipment purchase: For Track 2 only, funding can be used for the acquisition of smaller pieces of equipment up to a total of $50,000 per year that may help accelerate testing, add a unique capability to an equipment that's already in place or equipment that can enable rapid development of a prototype. ART funding is not to be used to build, construct, acquire, or renovate physical place or laboratory space. Similarly, ART funding is not to be used for purchase or acquisition of major pieces of equipment or instrumentation. 

• Annual ART cohort meeting: For all Tracks, the budget should set aside funds of $10,000 per year to cover the cost of attending an annual ART meeting. NSF plans to hold this meeting in person. The PI and at least two Co-PIs should plan on attending this meeting. Attendance by graduate and undergraduate students and postdoctoral researchers is also encouraged. The purpose of this annual meeting will be to provide a platform for exchanging ideas on challenges and opportunities, most efficient approaches for building institutional capacity in a holistic way, and network with other ART participants as well other organizations/firms/investors. The annual meeting will also be an opportunity for students as well as postdoctoral researchers to learn about different ways to recognize overall benefits of research translation, and ways get actively involved in research translation activities during the very early stages of their careers.

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

       January 15, 2026

        Tracks 2 and 5

       March 12, 2026

        Tracks 1, 3 and 4

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at:  https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html. For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail  rgov@nsf.gov. The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov 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:  https://www.grants.gov/applicants. 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:  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 Research.gov for further processing.

The NSF Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov informational page provides submission guidance to applicants and links to helpful resources including the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide, and Grants.gov Submitted Proposals Frequently Asked Questions. Grants.gov proposals must pass all NSF pre-check and post-check validations in order to be accepted by Research.gov at NSF.

When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends applicants initiate proposal submission at least five business days in advance of a deadline to allow adequate time to address NSF compliance errors and resubmissions by 5:00 p.m. submitting organization's local time on the deadline. Please note that some errors cannot be corrected in Grants.gov. Once a proposal passes pre-checks but fails any post-check, an applicant can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov 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 PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/overview. 

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. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.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 PAPPG Chapter II.D.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
   1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
   2. 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: 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 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 and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

The proposals submitted in response to NSF ART program will also be evaluated for additional criteria to determine the merit of the proposed project.  

• Track alignment: For all Tracks: Does the lead organization and the overall proposal show a strong alignment with the intent of the Track to which it is submitted? The ART program will support only those proposals that show a clear and strong alignment with the goals of the Track to which they are submitted to.    
• Increased Capacity for Research Translation: For Tracks 1 and 2, does the proposal clearly define as to how the IHE will increase its RTRL over the course of the award and then sustain and grow beyond the award duration?  Does the proposal make a compelling case that makes it clear that the team has strong support from the institutional leadership and the goal is to scale research translation across the entire IHE (and not just in one or two disciplines)?  
• Enhance capacity for research translation in the region: For Track 3, does the proposal present a compelling case that the lead organization will help boost the capacity for research translation for the region it intends to engage? Does the proposal present a clear plan for which other low RTRL IHEs will be engaged and how? Does the proposal make clear provisions for directing resources to directly support research translation at other low RTRL IHEs? Does the proposal provide a sustainability plan for the RESOURCE well beyond the duration of the support from ART? Does the RESOURCE leverage other resources and infrastructure to its advantage?   
• Education and training: For all Tracks: Does the proposal describe how undergraduate, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty would be trained and/or provides access to resources for education related to entrepreneurship, technology transfer, as well as activities related to sustained economic and collective impact? For Track 4, is there a clear plan for generation, testing, revision, and dissemination of the education and training materials?  
• Coordination for Accelerating Research Translation: For Track 5, does the proposing lead organization have the experience and a demonstrated track record in areas related to entrepreneurship, technology transfer, development of educational and training resources to lead the coordination effort? Does the proposal clearly describe a coordination structure? Is there a clear plan for how the proposing organization plans for developing a community of practice focused on research translation? Does the proposal describe a clear plan for conducting the complex tasks related to ensuring the different efforts conducted under Tracks 1,2, 3, and 4 are coordinated?

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.

Note that reviewers for Track 2 GROW panels may be given an opportunity to recommend a meritorious proposal that has not received consensus support from the panel but that they believe is worthy to be included among other proposals deemed meritorious by the panel. The cognizant NSF Program Officer(s), however, are ultimately responsible for all award recommendations.

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 generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. 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 proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients 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 Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support 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 grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

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 an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. 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)*; 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 https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from 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 Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for infrastructure projects under an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF’s Build America, Buy America webpage.

Special Award Conditions:

In compliance with the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, Section 10636 (Person or entity of concern prohibition) (42 U.S.C. 19235): No person published on the list under section 1237(b) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) or entity identified under section 1260H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (10 U.S.C. 113 note; Public Law 116-283) may receive or participate in any grant, award, program, support, or other activity under the U.S. National Science Foundation Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships. See here for more details.

NSF ART awards will be made as grants (standard or continuing grant increments) or cooperative agreements. The cooperative agreements will include Special Terms and Conditions relating to the period of performance, statement of work, awardee responsibilities, NSF responsibilities, joint NSF-awardee responsibilities, funding and funding schedule, reporting requirements, Senior Personnel, and other conditions. NSF may also undertake steps to conduct external evaluation of the progress made and the associated activities supported by this program.

For awards made as cooperative agreements, towards the end of the first year and every year after that, the PI and Co-PIs may be required to participate in a project evaluation meeting held online or at NSF. The purpose of this meeting is for an external panel and NSF to assess the progress the awardees have made toward advancing project goals via a well-functioning team. Each awardee team will prepare briefing material (expected to be ten pages or less) describing its accomplishments and make a short presentation followed by questions and answers. The reviewers from a panel will evaluate the team's progress toward its stated goals and progress toward creating deliverables. Considering reviewers' input and the team's history in successfully addressing program feedback, NSF will decide whether the IHE will receive funding for the following year.  

•  The awardee must comply with all guidance, including guidance conveyed through Frequently Asked Questions, as amended during the performance of this award, for awardee workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force Guidance) at https:// www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/ 
•  Awardees will be required to include appropriate acknowledgment of NSF support in any publication (including World Wide Web pages) of any material based on or developed under the project, in the following terms: “This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation ART program under Award No. (Grantee enters NSF award number)." 

Awardees also will be required to orally acknowledge NSF support using the language specified above during all news media interviews, including popular media such as radio, television, and news magazines. 

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual 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 annual 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 Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.

NSF may require additional reporting requirements for the ART program, including metrics for success, which will be provided later. Additional reporting conditions may also apply pursuant to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

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:

• Pradeep Fulay, telephone: (703) 292-2445, email: art@nsf.gov

• Hina Mehta, telephone: (703) 292-8084, email: art@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: rgov@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:  support@grants.gov.

Please address any program-related inquiries to art@nsf.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 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.

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 https://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 (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 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 https://www.nsf.gov Location: 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 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: nsfpubs@nsf.gov or telephone: (703) 292-8134 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 proposers 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/recipients 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 proposers 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 System of Record Notices, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” 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
Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support
Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management
National Science Foundation
Alexandria, VA 22314