NSF 25-537: NSF-DFG Lead Agency Opportunity in Chemistry and Chemical Process and Transport Systems

The core programs of ENG/CBET, MPS/CHE, DFG/PC, and DFG/ING 1 recognize that researchers in both the US and Germany perform world-class research. While both NSF and DFG always encourage international collaborations on core program submissions, the need for two separate review processes makes funding these types of collaborations difficult for US-German research teams. This solicitation is designed to eliminate this complication by allowing a collaborative proposal that includes both an eligible US collaborator and an eligible German collaborator to submit one joint proposal to one organization for one review process. Both agencies will honor the decision of this single review process, thereby paving the way for more potential US-German collaborative projects. Before a team can submit a proposal, they must decide which investigator will lead the overall joint US-German project. This is determined by where the greater proportion of research will be performed. The reviewing organization, NSF or DFG should be that of the lead investigator. This solicitation is the mechanism for NSF to act as the "lead" organization. For research teams that would like DFG as the lead organization, please see instructions at: https://www.dfg.de/nsf-che-cbet.

Prior to submission, prospective PIs are strongly encouraged to contact cognizant program officers at NSF and DFG to discuss the suitability of their proposed research, as well as the project funding limits if they are not outlined on the program page in question. Additionally, the prospective PIs must discuss within their research team where they feel the largest proportion of research lies and agree on a lead agency (either NSF or DFG).

III. Award Information

The Program estimates a Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget of $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 and expects to make 4-10 awards.

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

Further information about organization processes and organization-specific award information is provided in the full text of this solicitation.

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs): Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of sub-awards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.
• 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.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1

A U.S. individual may appear as Principal Investigator (PI), co-PI, or senior/key personnel on only one proposal per annual cycle submitted in response to this solicitation. For programs with no submission deadline, the 12-month cycle starts with the proposal submission date. For proposals submitted to NSF/CHE, the submission will count towards the total proposal submission limit to the Disciplinary Research Programs (DRP), as defined in NSF CHE-DRP and CHE-DRP:NDP solicitations. For German Personnel, there is no limitation.

If a U.S. individual is listed as PI, co-PI, or senior/key personnel on more than one proposal to this solicitation, then only the first submitted proposal will be considered. The remaining submission(s) will be returned without review.

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.

Proposals eligible for funding consideration through this Lead Agency Opportunity must have a research focus that falls within the scope of a participating division/program in both NSF and DFG.

Prior to submission, prospective PIs are strongly encouraged to contact cognizant program officers at NSF and DFG to discuss the suitability of their proposed research, as well as the project funding limits if they are not outlined on the program page in question. Additionally, the prospective PIs must discuss within their research team where they feel the largest proportion of research lies and agree on a lead agency (either NSF or DFG).

Special Instructions (in addition to the PAPPG requirements) for full proposal submissions are required when NSF is the lead agency:

Cover Sheet

Germany should be reported on the Cover Sheet under "International Activities: Country/Countries Involved." If additional countries are involved outside of the U.S. and Germany, please include those here as well. German collaborators should not be listed on the coversheet of the proposal. Information on German collaborators must be provided as specified below. This information is for administrative purposes only and is not intended to characterize the level or value of the contribution of German personnel to the project.

Title of the Proposal

The title of the proposal should begin with "NSF-DFG:"

Project Description

The project description and project summary of the proposal must include a narrative of the work that will be accomplished by the entire collaborative team, including an explanation of the role(s) of the German collaborator(s) and an explanation of how the team will work together. Please note that German collaborators are exempt from the Results from Prior NSF Support section requirement.

Budget

The US budget and budget justification should include only the costs for the US Senior/Key Personnel. The German budget and budget justification should ONLY include the costs for German collaborators. This document should be submitted as a supplementary document (see also Other Supplementary Documents below).

Proposals that request duplicative funding from NSF and DFG will be returned without review.

Biographical Sketches

• Biographical Sketches for U.S. Collaborators and other Personnel should follow the PAPPG instructions.
• For German collaborators requesting funding from DFG (the equivalent of Senior/Key Personnel (as defined in the NSF PAPPG Exhibit II-3): Upload a biographical sketch separately for each individual who is the equivalent of Senior/Key Personnel requesting funding from DFG as a PDF in Other Personnel Biographical Information using guidelines provided by OISE: https://www.nsf.gov/od/oise/proposals-with-international-collaborators. Clearly label each document with the individual's name and "Biographical Sketch."

Current and Pending (Other) Support

• Current and Pending (Other) Support should NOT be provided for the German collaborators with the proposal. This document may be requested for proposals under consideration for an award.

Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources

This section should contain descriptions of both US and German facilities, equipment, and other resources according to the guidance in the PAPPG.

Other Supplementary Documents

Upload the following information in the order noted as a single PDF in Other Supplementary Documents. Clearly label the document as "Personnel requesting funding from DFG".

1. For the equivalent of Senior/Key Personnel (as defined in the NSF PAPPG Exhibit II-3) requesting funding from DFG, list:
   • Name
   • Email Address
   • Organizational Affiliation
   • Organization's Location
   • Role in the proposed project
2. For each organization requesting funding from DFG, list the total budget requested, expressed in USD and the currency of DFG. This should be a single number per requesting organization not the full budget or budget justification.
3. If additional collaborators from countries besides the U.S. and Germany are engaged in the proposed project, please provide the information listed in item 1.A. above for them in a separate single PDF in Other Supplementary Documents. Clearly label the document as "Listing of additional international personnel." Total budget number requested for these collaborators is not required.
4. German Budget and Budget Justification detailing the breakdown of funding requested from DFG, outlined as in the elan proposal form 53.01 (section 5).
5. Letter(s) of Collaboration from participating German and other non-funded collaborators. Letters of collaboration should follow the recommended format specified in the PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.

Single Copy Documents

Collaborators and Other Affiliations (COA) information is required for German collaborators and should be prepared using the COA template. This document must be uploaded to the "Additional Single Copy Documents" section. Do NOT upload this document to the "Other Supplementary Documents" section.

Within 5 days of submitting the proposal to NSF, the German collaborative partner is required to submit a copy of the proposal to DFG via elan, the DFG's electronic proposal processing system, to input the necessary information and forms into the corresponding system. The submitted documents must include the breakdown of the German Budget (as outlined in elan Proposal form 53.01 section 5) and biographical sketches. The US investigators should be included as collaborative partners in elan. Additionally, the German collaborative partner must submit the "Project Data Form" provided on DFG website, which is needed to fulfill DFG compliance.

For submissions where DFG is intended as the lead agency, please see DFG website at https://www.dfg.de/nsf-che-cbet for more details and instructions.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

If a proposal is selected for funding by NSF, the German PI(s) will be contacted by DFG to receive funding for the German portion of the award.

Proposals that request duplicative funding from NSF and DFG will be returned without review.

C. Due Dates

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

  Proposals Accepted Anytime

  Submission deadlines vary by program and proposals must meet program-specific requirements to be considered for review. For calendar year 2025, proposals are accepted after September 1, 2025. PIs should contact cognizant program officers for guidance.

Submission deadlines vary by program and proposals must meet program-specific requirements to be considered for review.

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 acknowledgment 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: expanding participation of women and individuals from underrepresented groups 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 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.

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 combined review.

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, or combined review. Proposals will be evaluated independently by the lead agency and the full review process is detailed in the management plan. 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.

All proposals will be assessed by either NSF or DFG, depending on which agency is the lead for the review process. Program Officers from both agencies will suggest reviewers for proposals submitted to NSF and DFG, but the lead agency is not obligated to use these reviewers. In some cases, DFG program officers may attend NSF review panels to observe the discussions ONLY for proposals that are part of this opportunity. In turn, NSF program directors may attend DFG review panels ONLY for discussion involving proposals submitted to this opportunity. NSF will follow its own conflict of interest and confidentiality policies. NSF will be responsible for obtaining any necessary conflict of interest documentation and for resolving any conflicts in accordance with its standard rules and procedures. NSF will share unattributed reviews, and, where applicable, PI responses and unattributed panel summaries with DFG. A deviation of the decision of the partner organization from that of the lead agency is possible. NSF reserves the right to negotiate final budgets with PIs prior to the award. Funding will be granted only if both funding organizations give a positive vote for funding.

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.

NSF Process:

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.

When NSF is not the Lead Agency:

All proposals will be evaluated following the DFG's general review procedures. For details on the review process please visit General Guidelines for Reviews (dfg.de).

Once a German PI is notified of an award by DFG, the non-lead (US.) collaborator(s) associated with the project must submit a copy of the proposal to the proper NSF program, providing NSF with complete documentation of the entire proposed research project. The non-lead (U.S.) collaborator will receive submission instructions from NSF at that time.

Regardless of Lead Agency Status:

• When awards are made, the U.S. researchers will be supported by NSF and the German researchers will be supported by DFG.
• Because the participating organizations have different funding cycles, it is possible that some projects will have start dates delayed until funds become available.
• Should a proposal be declined for funding, proposers should refer to each funding organization's individual resubmission policies.

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.

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.

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:

• Sachin Velankar, Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport Systems, telephone: (703) 292-2894, email: NSFDFG@nsf.gov
• Tomislav Pintauer, Division of Chemistry, telephone: (703) 292-7168, email: NSFDFG@nsf.gov
• Ilka Paulus, DFG/PC, telephone: +49 (228) 885-2021, email: NSF-DFG-Chemistry@dfg.de
• Markus Behnke, DFG/PC, telephone: +49 (228) 885-2181, email: NSF-DFG-Chemistry@dfg.de
• Simon Jörres, DFG/ING 1, telephone: +49 (228) 885-2971, email: NSF-DFG-Chemistry@dfg.de
• Sebastian Peukert, DFG/IN 1, telephone: +49 (228) 885-2834, email: NSF-DFG-Chemistry@dfg.de

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.

All general NSF inquiries should be sent to NSFDFG@nsf.gov. All general DFG inquiries should be sent to NSF-DFG-Chemistry@dfg.de.

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