NSF 25-540: National Science Foundation Translation to Practice (NSF TTP)

Program Solicitation NSF 25-540

U.S. National Science Foundation Directorate for Biological Sciences Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate for STEM Education Directorate for Engineering Directorate for Geosciences Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

Supplement Due Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

     April 01, 2025 - April 01, 2026

     April 1 - April 1, Annually Thereafter

      Proposals Accepted Anytime - NSF TTP-E Track Only

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

     September 16, 2025

     Third Tuesday in September, Annually Thereafter

      NSF TTP-T and TTP-P Tracks

     January 20, 2026

     Third Tuesday in January, Annually Thereafter

      NSF TTP-T and TTP-P Tracks

     May 19, 2026

     Third Tuesday in May, Annually Thereafter

      NSF TTP-T and TTP-P Tracks

Important Information And Revision Notes

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title:

Synopsis of Program:

Broadening Participation In STEM:

NSF has a mandate to broaden participation in science and engineering, as articulated and reaffirmed in law since 1950. Congress has charged NSF to “develop intellectual capital, both people and ideas, with particular emphasis on groups and regions that traditionally have not participated fully in science, mathematics, and engineering."

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• NSF TTP Program, telephone: (703) 292-4800, email: translation@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- STEM Education
• 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
• 47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
• 47.084 --- NSF Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 29

Anticipated Funding Amount: $30,000,000

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:

By the submission deadline, a PI must hold either:

• A tenured or tenure-track position, or
• A primary, full-time, paid appointment in a research or teaching position (with exceptions granted for family or medical leave), as determined by the submitting institution.

The NSF TTP-E track requires the proposers to have an active, eligible, NSF research award. NSF TTP-E proposers should have at least one year remaining on their NSF award and should have submitted (and had approved) 1-2 annual reports to date. As part of this track, EAGER, RAPID, or RAISE awards are not eligible to receive NSF TTP-E funds. TTP-E proposers MUST provide a 3- to 5-page description of future translational activities to their cognizant NSF Program Officer (PO) via email and gain their approval via email, before submission of an NSF TTP-E proposal.

For the NSF TTP-P track, in addition to the PI, proposals must include a co-PI or Senior/Key Personnel who is a member or employee of an NSF-Catalyzed Partner. Partnerships with U.S. institutions of higher education are valued, but NSF TTP strongly prioritizes NSF-Catalyzed Partnerships that are able to help bring the product, process, or service to the market, potentially through licensing agreements, startup or small business formation, incorporation into an existing open-source ecosystem, development into standards setting arrangements, etc.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

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

A PI (or Co-PI) may submit only one NSF TTP proposal (NSF TTP-E, NSF TTP-T, or NSF TTP-P) at a time.

PIs (or Co-PIs) must wait for a determination (award or decline recommendation) on their current TTP proposal before submitting another TTP proposal.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not required

• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required

• Full Proposals:

  • 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).

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements:

  Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

  Not Applicable

• Other Budgetary Limitations:

  Not Applicable

C. Due Dates

• Supplement Due Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

       April 01, 2025 - April 01, 2026

       April 1 - April 1, Annually Thereafter

        Proposals Accepted Anytime - NSF TTP-E Track Only

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

       September 16, 2025

       Third Tuesday in September, Annually Thereafter

        NSF TTP-T and TTP-P Tracks

       January 20, 2026

       Third Tuesday in January, Annually Thereafter

        NSF TTP-T and TTP-P Tracks

       May 19, 2026

       Third Tuesday in May, Annually Thereafter

        NSF TTP-T and TTP-P Tracks

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

II. Program Description

III. Award Information

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:

By the submission deadline, a PI must hold either:

• A tenured or tenure-track position, or
• A primary, full-time, paid appointment in a research or teaching position (with exceptions granted for family or medical leave), as determined by the submitting institution.

The NSF TTP-E track requires the proposers to have an active, eligible, NSF research award. NSF TTP-E proposers should have at least one year remaining on their NSF award and should have submitted (and had approved) 1-2 annual reports to date. As part of this track, EAGER, RAPID, or RAISE awards are not eligible to receive NSF TTP-E funds. TTP-E proposers MUST provide a 3- to 5-page description of future translational activities to their cognizant NSF Program Officer (PO) via email and gain their approval via email, before submission of an NSF TTP-E proposal.

For the NSF TTP-P track, in addition to the PI, proposals must include a co-PI or Senior/Key Personnel who is a member or employee of an NSF-Catalyzed Partner. Partnerships with U.S. institutions of higher education are valued, but NSF TTP strongly prioritizes NSF-Catalyzed Partnerships that are able to help bring the product, process, or service to the market, potentially through licensing agreements, startup or small business formation, incorporation into an existing open-source ecosystem, development into standards setting arrangements, etc.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

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

A PI (or Co-PI) may submit only one NSF TTP proposal (NSF TTP-E, NSF TTP-T, or NSF TTP-P) at a time.

PIs (or Co-PIs) must wait for a determination (award or decline recommendation) on their current TTP proposal before submitting another TTP proposal.

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.

All NSF TTP proposals must be submitted by a single institution. Simultaneous proposal submissions from different organizations for a joint project in which each organization requests a separate award, also known as linked collaborative proposals, will be returned without review.

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.  In cases where the solicitation differs from the PAPPG, the solicitation directions should be followed.

Cover Sheet

Title: NSF TTP proposal titles must start with "NSF TTP-E: ", “NSF TTP-T: ”, or “NSF TTP-P: ”, (as appropriate for the track requested) and then the title of the project.

Project Summary

The Project Summary should be written in the third person and consists of an overview, a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity. Do not include any proprietary information in the Project Summary.

The summary MUST clearly address the following items:

Overview: A summary paragraph that briefly discusses the societal need for the proposed technology translation, the areas of application, the potential stakeholder, and the potential outcomes of the proposed activity.

If the PI has recently taken NSF I-Corps on the technology proposed in the TTP proposal, please list the award number on the first line of the Overview to be considered for a waiver of the I-Corps training requirement. Note: if the TTP Program determines that the I-Corps training is not current (within the last 2 years) or on the same proposed technology, and an award recommendation is contemplated, the cognizant NSF PO will request budget modifications to include I-Corps training.

Intellectual Merit: A summary paragraph addressing the intellectual merits of the proposed activity; e.g., the goals of the proposed research and the technical hurdles that will be addressed by the proposed research.

Broader Impacts: A summary paragraph describing the expected broader commercial, economic and/or other outcomes of the proposed project.

For NSF TTP-E: 

The NSF TTP-E track is designed to encourage current, eligible NSF awardees to intentionally pursue applications of their research with the potential for societal impact. The cognizant NSF Program Officer (PO) may recommend the extension of funding for the translation from foundational to use-inspired research and initial translational activities for a period of up to two years. The objective of such an extension is to offer investigators an opportunity to attack adventurous, high-risk opportunities in the same general research area, that are not covered by the original/current award. Special translational extensions may be initiated:

1)     by the cognizant NSF PO based on progress during the first 1-2 years of the award, as exemplified by exceptional progress and the potential for commercialization in the PIs’ annual reports or

2)     by PIs who believe that their projects have promising, translation-ready outcomes. In this case, PIs may identify themselves by requesting consideration for TTP-E from their cognizant NSF PO approximately 1-year prior to the end of their individual investigator award (before submission of a renewal request). The PI should make the request for consideration via email, by providing a 3- to 5-page description of future translational, use-inspired and initial translational activities. This description should include details of the research to be pursued, the opportunity (or gap) the technology translation would address, the role of any potential partners (encouraged, but not required), the role of students and/or postdocs, etc. The cognizant NSF PO will review this description along with at least 1 (and preferably 2) submitted and approved annual report(s).

If approval is provided via email by the cognizant NSF PO, PIs will be asked to create the special creativity extension via the “Supplemental Funding Request” function in Research.gov.  The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) is responsible for submitting the request via Research.gov. The request must include their initial 3-5 page research description as well as a copy of the email invitation in their proposal. Any TTP-E requests not accompanied by an emailed invitation from their cognizant NSF PO (in the Supplementary Documents) must be returned without review.

Note: If a PI is not invited to submit a TTP-E proposal, they are welcome to submit to the TTP-T or TTP-P tracks directly.

For NSF TTP-T and NSF TTP-P:

Project Description (Must not exceed 15 pages). The Project Description must include the following sections in the order specified. The bullet points in each section are suggestions for the information to be discussed and are provided as a guide. Adjustments in exact content and length of each section (with the exception of the Executive Summary) are allowable as necessary for the proposer(s) to clearly present their ideas.

Note: The PAPPG does not permit inclusion of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) in the Project Description. While proposers may use URLs in the References Cited section, reviewers are not required to access URLs.

1.   Executive Summary: (No more than 1 page)

• Identification of Drivers. Describe the potential use that is inspiring the research or societal and/or market need(s) to be addressed. How is this use/solution unique? Why is translation of the innovation needed?
• The Innovation. Succinctly describe the innovation. This section may contain proprietary information that could not be discussed in the Project Summary. What aspects are ambitious, high-impact, disruptive, or transformative compared to the state-of-the-art landscape of existing technology products, processes, or services?
• The Value Proposition. What is the potential societal or commercial value of the innovation? What are the benefits to various stakeholders? What is the key differentiator of your technology? How will you measure this differentiation?
• For NSF TTP-P proposals only: Describe the nature and merits of the collaboration with your required NSF-Catalyzed Partner(s).

2.   Research Motivation (Suggested length: 3 - 5 pages)

• What is the problem/challenge you are trying to solve? Why is this problem/challenge important? Who are the likely stakeholders and how will this effort impact them?
• What is the current state-of-the-art?  How will the innovation address unmet needs?
• Describe the STEM discovery or innovation that forms the basis for the use-inspired research / initial translational activities in terms of a new or improved product, process, or service.
• Describe the proposed end goals of the project. What does a translational solution look like (e.g., prototype development, systems optimization, industrial collaboration, global interoperability and integration, new/improved open-source ecosystem, standards implementation, change in local/state government policy, startup/small business creation, initiation of a non-profit or for-benefit entity, licensing agreement, etc.)? How will you get to this solution?
• What is the potential value of the innovation? Who might be interested in the solution?

3.   Development of Solutions (Suggested length: 5-7 pages)

• Describe the technical barriers and anticipated hurdles that will need to be addressed before successful translation or demonstration. How will you overcome these gaps and barriers?
• Describe how you will test, refine, and validate your product, process or service before full-scale production.
• Provide a chart that identifies the critical milestones to be reached along a technology / product development timeline.
• How will you measure success? How will you know if your product actually offers the desired improvement(s) and provides the desired use? How will you know if the project goals have been achieved and/or whether a pivot or re-start is needed?
• If not initially successful, what alternative approaches will be used? Provide a risk assessment and mitigation plan to address the failure of any of your R&D objectives, tasks, or success metrics.
• How do you envision integrating your product, process, or service into the current systems and/or marketplace?
• How sustainable, robust, or resilient is the solution? Will you have access to consistent resources and supply chains? Is there a possibility for unanticipated consequences? How will you determine safety and compliance (if needed)?
• What is the likely time to market or deployment, including the development timeline and the production readiness? 
• How will you ensure scalability, cost-effectiveness, timeliness, and integration / compatibility?
• Which features might keep potential competitors from circumventing the technology?
• If appropriate, discuss the intellectual property (IP) landscape, including elements such as results of a preliminary patent search, intellectual property (IP) status (e.g., invention disclosures, patent applications, patents granted, etc.), and the strategy for IP protection.

4.   Project Team (Suggested length: 1 page)

• List the team members and their organizational affiliation. Provide their current job titles and describe their relevant qualifications as they relate to the proposed project. If partners / collaborators / consultants are from outside the proposing organization, describe their role and the value they add to the project.
• If students and postdoctoral researchers are involved, describe their specific roles in the project.

5.   Partnerships, required only for NSF TTP-P proposals (Suggested length: 1-2 pages)

• Identify the NSF-Catalyzed Partner(s) and the unique strengths and capabilities they bring to the collaboration. Discuss their specific roles in the project.
• Describe how each NSF-Catalyzed Partner (a) catalyzes and accelerates technology translation development toward productization / commercialization.
• How will the research tasks be identified, prioritized, and acted upon?
• Provide an assessment plan with a combination of quantitative data and qualitative assessments to measure growth and gauge the success of the NSF-Catalyzed Partnerships in translating academic research and technologies into commercial and societal use.

6.   Broader Impacts (Suggested length: 1-2 pages)

• Along with the usual considerations of Broader Impacts (as described in the NSF PAPPG), describe the economic and societal benefits of the proposed translational activities.
• If successful during the proposed project, how does the team envision moving forward after a TTP award? For example, activities might include identifying and securing strategic partnerships with economic development organizations; collaborations with accelerators, incubators, professional organizations, innovation hubs, investors, and licensees; the creation/funding of spin-out companies, etc.

7.   Results of Prior NSF Support. If relevant, please place particular emphasis on the outcomes of previously funded translational research, collaboration with strategic translation partners (e.g., industry, government, startups, open-source, etc.), early proof-of-concept or similar projects of commercial, economic, and/or other impact.

References Cited. Provide a list of relevant reference sources, including patent citations and publications of relevant research results. If there are no references cited in the proposal, include a statement to that effect in this module.

Budgets and Budget Justification. The maximum budget must not exceed $1,200,000 for NSF TTP-T proposals, and $2,000,000 for NSF TTP-P proposals. Proposals with budgets in excess of these limits may be returned without review.

• For All TTP Tracks: NSF TTP PI Meeting. NSF may organize an NSF TTP PI meeting or a convening between NSF TTP teams, investors, industry representatives, and NSF-Direct Partners during the grant period. Proposers should budget travel (Line E.) for the PI and one student or postdoctoral researcher to attend (up to $2,500 per person per award) in Year 2. Additional travel costs may be budgeted for a collaborator or NSF-Catalyzed Partner on the project to travel to the NSF TTP PI meeting (up to $2,500 per person) in Year 2.

• Subawards (Line G.5.). An ideal NSF-Catalyzed Partner demonstrates a strategic interest in the NSF TTP-funded technology and is not a service provider or a vendor for the project. 

If there is a subaward to an organization with which a PI or co-PI has a Conflict of Interest, the PI's Organization must submit the Conflict-of-Interest Mitigation and Management Plan for that individual before the cognizant NSF PO makes an award recommendation. Please refer to Chapter IX.A of the NSF PAPPG for Conflict-of-Interest Policies. (The Conflict-of-Interest plan is not required at the proposal stage, only as a condition for award recommendation.)

• For NSF TTP-T and TTP-P tracks: The budget must include $50,000 for required I-Corps Teams training in Year 1, if the PI/Co-PI has not recently (within the last two years) completed NSF I-Corps training on the topic of the proposed NSF TTP-P. The I-Corps budget request should be listed as $45,000 on Line G.6. Other. and $5,000 added to the indirect costs (the maximum indirect cost rate for the I-Corps training is limited to 11.11%). Do not provide a breakdown of the I-Corps allocation in the budget justification of the NSF TTP-P proposal (for additional information about the I-Corps Teams program, please visit https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/i-corps/about-teams).

• For All TTP Tracks: Allowable Patent Expenses. To defray costs of protecting the intellectual property stemming from NSF TTP research and ultimately reducing the costs incurred by the lead institution of higher education, the NSF TTP tracks allow the budget request to include up to $50,000 for the applicant institution over the entire duration of the project. These funds can be used (a) to pay internal costs borne by the applicant institution’s Technology Transfer Office (TTO) for the assessment and safeguarding of newly developed, NSF TTP-related intellectual property, and/or (b) to secure assistance from domestic third-party service providers in the U.S. or its territories. These funds may cover an array of patenting expenses including filing and patent litigation. The following are not allowed: expenses incurred by licensees; patenting expenses incurred prior to the effective date or after the end date of the NSF TTP award; patenting expenses related to inventions not directly related to NSF TTP award; and trademark or copyright search or filing expenses. Allowable patent expenses should be listed on Line G.6. Other; standard institutional indirect costs will apply.

Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources. See the most recent PAPPG for further information.

Senior/Key Personnel Documents. See the most recent PAPPG for further information.

Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

Data Management and Sharing Plan (Required, 2 pages maximum). The Data Management and Sharing Plan must be substantive and specific to the application described in the proposal. For example, provide details regarding the protection of intellectual property rights to be generated through the NSF TTP project, recognizing the potential commercial, economic, and other benefits of the activities.

For additional information on the Dissemination and Sharing of Research Results, see: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp.

Letters of Support are not allowed for any of the NSF TTP tracks.

Letters of Collaboration (Required for the NSF TTP-P track; Encouraged for NSF TTP-E and NSF TTP-T tracks). NSF-Catalyzed Partners are individuals or entities that work with the PI(s) and their team to provide additional value to the project and may be paid or unpaid. Regardless of whether the NSF-Catalyzed Partner is included in the budget, a Letter of Collaboration from each NSF-Catalyzed Partner must be provided in the Supplementary Documents at the time of submission of the proposal. Such letters must appear on the entity's letterhead and be signed by the appropriate representative of the entity/organization. The letters must describe the nature of the collaboration and how the collaboration brings additional value to the project. It is the responsibility of the submitting organization to discuss the appropriate intellectual property policies, including patent disclosures and filings, with the NSF-Catalyzed Partners. NSF is not responsible for the type of agreement reached between grantees and the NSF-Catalyzed Partners.

Single Copy Documents.  Proprietary or privileged information should be included only in the separate “Single Copy Documents” section of the proposal and only when such information is necessary to convey an understanding of the proposed project. This information will not be shared with reviewers or NSF-Direct Partner representatives.

Resubmission Change Description (if applicable; 2-page maximum). A declined proposal may be resubmitted, but only after it has undergone substantial revision. A resubmitted proposal that has not clearly considered the major comments or concerns resulting from the prior NSF review may be returned without review. A resubmission must include a 1- to 2-page Single Copy Document that includes the previous proposal number, a summary of the NSF reviewers’ comments and the PI's (PIs’) response to those comments. This document will be reviewed by the NSF program staff but not the proposal reviewers or the NSF-Direct Partners.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

C. Due Dates

• Supplement Due Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time)

       April 01, 2025 - April 01, 2026

       April 1 - April 1, Annually Thereafter

        Proposals Accepted Anytime - NSF TTP-E Track Only

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

       September 16, 2025

       Third Tuesday in September, Annually Thereafter

        NSF TTP-T and TTP-P Tracks

       January 20, 2026

       Third Tuesday in January, Annually Thereafter

        NSF TTP-T and TTP-P Tracks

       May 19, 2026

       Third Tuesday in May, Annually Thereafter

        NSF TTP-T and TTP-P Tracks

For NSF TTP-E:  Proposals may be submitted anytime.

For NSF TTP-T and NSF TTP-P:

September 16, 2025

January 20, 2026

May 19, 2026

    Third Tuesday in September, January, and May, Annually Thereafter

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: 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.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

NSF TTP-T and NSF TTP-P proposals will also be evaluated on the basis of the following solicitation-specific review criteria:

Research Motivation

• Does the proposal adequately motivate the project by describing translational results that have the potential for significant societal impacts and/or economic benefits?
• Is the motivation for this research compelling? Does the innovation clearly describe unmet need(s)? Are the stakeholders and the potential impacts of the research clear?
• Does the proposal provide a suitable description of the current knowledge gaps and technical barriers to implementation of the proposed technology in products, processes, and services?
• Does the proposal adequately describe the end goals of the project?  Does the proposal adequately describe what the solution will look like (e.g., prototype development, systems optimization, industrial collaboration, global interoperability and integration, new/improved open-source ecosystem, standards implementation, change in local/state government policy, startup/small business creation, initiation of a non-profit or for-benefit entity, licensing agreement, etc.) and how will the team get to this solution?
• Does the proposal appropriately assess and describe the potential value of the innovation in terms of commercial, economic, or other benefits?  Does the proposal correctly identify interested stakeholders?

Development of Solutions

• Have the proposers clearly and comprehensively described the technical barriers and anticipated hurdles (e.g., safety, compliance, scalability, integration, compatibility, sustainability, cost, IP/licensing, etc.) that need to be addressed before successful translation and deployment? If needed, have they provided contingency plans for the most challenging steps? 
• Has the proposer adequately described how they will test, refine, and validate their product, process or service before implementation? Has the possibility/likelihood of unanticipated consequences been adequately identified?
• Is the chart of critical milestones and metrics of success reasonable? Are risk assessment and mitigation plans appropriate?
• Does the research plan adequately describe the goals of the project and how progress towards these goals will be measured? Will the team be able to determine if/when success has been achieved and/or whether a pivot or re-start is needed?
• Has the proposer adequately considered integration into the marketplace: e.g., consistent access to resources and supply chains, safety, compliance, scalability, cost-effectiveness, timeliness, and compatibility?
• Is the likely time to market or deployment, including the development timeline and the production readiness reasonable? Will this timeline allow for a competitive advantage?  How effective will the product, process or service be in keeping potential competitors from circumventing the technology?
• If appropriate, does the proposal appropriately discuss the IP landscape and the strategy for IP protection?

Project Team

• Does the team seem capable of carrying out the research and translation plan?  Are there gaps in required expertise or duplication of roles?
• What is the breadth and depth of the student and postdoctoral learning experience likely to be?

Partnerships (Required for NSF TTP-P track proposals, encouraged for NSF TTP-E and NSF TTP-T tracks)

• Is (Are) the proposed NSF-Catalyzed Partnership(s) strategic? Do the partners appropriately complement each other? Is the role(s) of the NSF-Catalyzed Partner well-considered? 
• Is the partnership likely to catalyze and accelerate the technology translation?

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by

Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

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 Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships.

NSF-Direct Partner Engagement: NSF-Direct Partners announced via DCL and posted on the NSF TTP Program Page. Submission of a TTP proposal (any track) after an announcement of NSF-Direct Partners serves as consent to share proposals (not including Single Copy Documents) with the NSF-Direct Partners. NSF-Direct Partners may be invited to attend the review panels as observers when relevant proposals are discussed; NSF-Direct Partners will not serve as reviewers and/or panelists. An NSF-Direct Partner may decline to provide feedback on proposals.

NSF will take into consideration the input of NSF-Direct Partner(s) prior to making final funding decisions but will retain final authority for making all award decisions. Proposals selected for NSF-Direct Partner co-funding will be awarded by NSF using funds transferred from the NSF-Direct Partner.

NSF will administer awards under the NSF TTP program in accordance with standard NSF policies and procedures. Awards will be subject to NSF terms and conditions.

An NSF-Direct Partner may attend NSF TTP PI meetings. The NSF TTP PI meetings, if held, will be inclusive of all the active NSF TTP projects. An NSF-Direct Partner may also host the event, or sponsor some or all components of the event.

Acknowledgement of Support: Recipients will be required to include appropriate acknowledgment of NSF and, if applicable, NSF-Direct Partners’ support in reports and/or publications on work performed under an award. An example of such an acknowledgement would be:  "This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. (NSF grant number) and is supported in part by funds from the [NSF-Direct Partner(s)] as specified in the NSF Translation to Practice (TTP) program."

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 share annual and/or final project reports with the NSF-Direct Partner(s) after they have been reviewed and accepted by the cognizant PO. The NSF-Direct Partner(s) may opt to decline to receive these reports. Details on the sharing of information with each NSF-Direct Partner(s) will be posted in the relevant DCL and on the NSF TTP program page.

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:

• NSF TTP Program, telephone: (703) 292-4800, email: translation@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.

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