This document has been archived and replaced by NSF 14-545 (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf14545). Title: Coupling, Energetice, and Dynamics of Atomospheric Regions (CEDAR)(nsf06561) Date: 04/09/13 Replaces: NSF 05-554 Coupling, Energetics, and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR) [1]Program Solicitation NSF 06-561 Replaces Document(s): NSF 05-554 NSF Logo National Science Foundation Directorate for Geosciences Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time): July 10, 2006 May 10, 2007 May 10, 2007 May 10, Annually Thereafter May 10, 2013 May 10, Annually Thereafter IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), [2]NSF 13-1, was issued on October 4, 2012 and is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 14, 2013. Please be advised that the guidelines contained in [3]NSF 13-1 apply to proposals submitted in response to this funding opportunity. Proposers who opt to submit prior to January 14, 2013, must also follow the guidelines contained in [4]NSF 13-1. Please be aware that significant changes have been made to the PAPPG to implement revised merit review criteria based on the National Science Board (NSB) report, [5]National Science Foundation's Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revisions. While the two merit review criteria remain unchanged (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts), guidance has been provided to clarify and improve the function of the criteria. Changes will affect the project summary and project description sections of proposals. Annual and final reports also will be affected. A by-chapter summary of this and other significant changes is provided at the beginning of both the [6]Grant Proposal Guide and the [7]Award & Administration Guide. Please note that this program solicitation may contain supplemental proposal preparation guidance and/or guidance that deviates from the guidelines established in the [8]Grant Proposal Guide. A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), [9]NSF 11-1, was issued on October 1, 2010 and is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 18, 2011. Please be advised that the guidelines contained in[10] NSF 11-1 apply to proposals submitted in response to this funding opportunity. Proposers who opt to submit prior to January 18, 2011, must also follow the guidelines contained in [11]NSF 11-1. Cost Sharing: The PAPPG has been revised to implement the National Science Board's recommendations regarding cost sharing. Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. In order to assess the scope of the project, all organizational resources necessary for the project must be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal. The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable financial information. Mandatory cost sharing will only be required when explicitly authorized by the NSF Director. See the PAPP Guide Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) [12]Chapter II.C.2.g(xi) for further information about the implementation of these recommendations. Data Management Plan: The PAPPG contains a clarification of NSF's long standing data policy. All proposals must describe plans for data management and sharing of the products of research, or assert the absence of the need for such plans. FastLane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing a Data Management Plan. The Data Management Plan will be reviewed as part of the intellectual merit or broader impacts of the proposal, or both, as appropriate. Links to data management requirements and plans relevant to specific Directorates, Offices, Divisions, Programs, or other NSF units are available on the NSF website at: [13]http://www.nsf.govbfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp. See [14]Chapter II.C.2.j of the GPG for further information about the implementation of this requirement. Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan: As a reminder, each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Please be advised that if required, FastLane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing a Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan. See [15]Chapter II.C.2.j of the GPG for further information about the implementation of this requirement. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS General Information Program Title: Coupling, Energetics, and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR) Synopsis of Program: CEDAR is a broad-based, community-initiated, upper atmospheric research program. The goal is to understand the behavior of atmospheric regions from the middle atmosphere upward through the thermosphere and ionosphere into the exosphere in terms of coupling, energetics, chemistry, and dynamics on regional and global scales. These processes are related to the sources of perturbations that propagate upward from the lower atmosphere as well as to solar radiation and particle inputs from above. The activities within this program combine observations, theory and modeling. 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. * Farzad Kamalabadi, telephone: (703) 292-8529, email: [16]fkamalab@nsf.gov * Robert M. Robinson, Program Manager, 775 S, telephone: (703) 292-8529, fax: (703) 292-9022, email: [17]rmrobins@nsf.gov Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): * 47.050 --- Geosciences Award Information Anticipated Type of Award: Continuing Grant Estimated Number of Awards: 10 to 15 Anticipated Funding Amount: $1,000,000 in FY 2007 pending availability of funds Eligibility Information Organization Limit: The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter I, Section E. PI Limit: None Specified Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: None Specified Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: None Specified Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions A. Proposal Preparation Instructions * Letters of Intent: Not Applicable * Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable * Full Proposals: + Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: [18]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. + 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: [19]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gran tsgovguide) 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 * Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time): July 10, 2006 May 10, 2007 May 10, 2007 May 10, Annually Thereafter May 10, 2013 May 10, Annually Thereafter Proposal Review Information Criteria Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Award Administration Information Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply. Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply. TABLE OF CONTENTS [20]Summary of Program Requirements I. [21]Introduction II. [22]Program Description III. [23]Award Information IV. [24]Eligibility Information V. [25]Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions A. [26]Proposal Preparation Instructions B. [27]Budgetary Information C. [28]Due Dates D. [29]FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements VI. [30]NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures A. [31]Merit Review Principles and Criteria B. [32]Review and Selection Process VII. [33]Award Administration Information A. [34]Notification of the Award B. [35]Award Conditions C. [36]Reporting Requirements VIII. [37]Agency Contacts IX. [38]Other Information I. INTRODUCTION The Coupling, Energetics, and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR) Program began in 1986 after several years of organization and planning by members of the upper atmosphere research community. A primary objective of CEDAR research is to understand changes in the atmosphere over short and long time scales. As an element of the U. S. Global Change Program, CEDAR aims to explain how energy is transferred between atmospheric regions by combining a comprehensive observational program with theoretical and empirical modeling efforts. In the initial stages of the program, existing instruments and facilities were used to address topics beyond the scope of single-instrument research. Later, these instruments were automated and upgraded to improve speed and sensitivity. Networks of instruments and facilities were established to address topics involving global scale coupling and transport effects between geographic regions and different altitudes. Currently, these observations are being combined with sophisticated models to test our understanding of atmospheric coupling processes. A data base of CEDAR observations is maintained for community use at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Annual CEDAR workshops provide a forum for investigators to present recent results, exchange information, and plan future experimental campaigns. The CEDAR Science Steering Committee organizes the workshops and provides broad oversight for theoretical and experimental research, as well as instrument development. The CEDAR Program encourages participation by students who benefit from the interdisciplinary nature of the research and the multi-faceted approach involving theory, numerical simulations, instrument development, data analysis, field measurements, and teamwork. II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Coupling, Energetics, and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR) Program is a broad-based, community-initiated, upper atmospheric research program. The goal is to understand the behavior of atmospheric regions from the middle atmosphere upward through the thermosphere and ionosphere into the exosphere in terms of coupling, energetics, chemistry, and dynamics on regional and global scales. These processes are related to the sources of perturbations that propagate upward from the lower atmosphere as well as to solar radiation and particle inputs from above. The activities within this program combine observations, theory and modeling. The specific goals of the CEDAR program include the study of: 1) dynamics and energetics of the upper atmosphere, with particular emphasis on the region between 60 and 150 km; 2) coupling between the mesosphere, ionosphere, thermosphere, exosphere, and magnetosphere; and 3) horizontal coupling between adjacent geographic regions. CEDAR support in the past has led to improved spectrometers, interferometers, and imagers; allowed upgrades of existing facilities; and supported the development of lidars and small radars. Several facilities contain a broad array of state-of-the-art tools, providing a solid infrastructure by which to address outstanding aeronomical problems. The CEDAR program encourages the use of both chains and clusters of instruments in scientific studies of atmosphere coupling processes. The CEDAR community continuously strives to update its science plan to focus on specific high-priority research areas. The most recent plan is the CEDAR Phase III report, which identified four key science areas: Polar aeronomy, Coupling with lower altitudes, Long-term variations, and Solar-terrestrial interactions. More information on the CEDAR program, the CEDAR Phase III report, and current high-priority research areas can be found at [39]http://cedarweb.hao.ucar.edu. Normally, CEDAR awards are made for a duration of three years, but proposers may request from one to five years of funding provided the requested duration is adequately justified. III. AWARD INFORMATION Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds. Normally, CEDAR awards are made for a duration of three years, but proposers may request from one to five years of funding provided the requested duration is adequately justified. NSF estimates making 10 to 15 continuing grant awards. The typical award size will be about $85,000 per year. The maximum award size will be about $150,000 per year. The anticipated funding amount is $1,000,000 in FY 2007 pending availability of funds. IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION Organization Limit: The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter I, Section E. PI Limit: None Specified Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: None Specified Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: None Specified 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 Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system. * Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: [40]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from [41]nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing. * 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: ([42]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgo vguide). 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) 292-7827 or by e-mail from [43]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 the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals. Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will check for required sections of the proposal, in accordance with Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) instructions described in Chapter II.C.2. The GPG requires submission of: Project Summary; Project Description; References Cited; Biographical Sketch(es); Budget; Budget Justification; Current and Pending Support; Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources; Data Management Plan; and Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, if applicable. If a required section is missing, FastLane will not accept the proposal. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions. If the solicitation instructions do not require a GPG-required section to be included in the proposal, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation." Doing so will enable FastLane to accept your proposal. The following instructions supplement the Grant Proposal Guide. The title on the cover sheet of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation should begin with the word "CEDAR:". B. Budgetary Information Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited C. Due Dates * Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time): July 10, 2006 May 10, 2007 May 10, 2007 May 10, Annually Thereafter May 10, 2013 May 10, Annually Thereafter D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements * For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane: Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: [44]https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail [45]fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane 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. Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: [46]https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp. * 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: [47]http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding 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: [48]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 the NSF FastLane system for further processing. 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 the GPG as [49]Exhibit III-1. A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: [50]http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/meritreview/. Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in [51]Empowering the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation: NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the core strategies in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the variety of learning perspectives. Another core strategy in support of NSF's mission is broadening opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports. 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. ([52]GPG Chapter II.C.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 [53]GPG Chapter II.C.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 a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and b. 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: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities 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 diverse, 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 Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate. Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria Relevance to CEDAR program objectives. 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 formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. 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 is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, 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. In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. 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. VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION A. Notification of the Award Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. 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 letter, 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 letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. 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 [54]http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from [55]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 Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at [56]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag. 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 at least 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). Within 90 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public. Failure to provide the required annual or final 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 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 Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at [57]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag. 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: * Farzad Kamalabadi, telephone: (703) 292-8529, email: [58]fkamalab@nsf.gov * Robert M. Robinson, Program Manager, 775 S, telephone: (703) 292-8529, fax: (703) 292-9022, email: [59]rmrobins@nsf.gov For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact: * FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: [60]fastlane@nsf.gov. * Sylvia L. Maynard, Program Assistant, 775 S, telephone: (703) 292-8519, fax: (703) 292-9022, email: [61]smaynard@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: [62]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, National Science Foundation Update is a free e-mail subscription service 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 Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail when new publications are issued that match their identified interests. Users can subscribe to this service by clicking the "Get NSF Updates by Email" link on the [63]NSF web site. Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at [64]http://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 provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 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 [65]http://www.nsf.gov * Location: 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230 * 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: [66]nsfpubs@nsf.gov or telephone: (703) 292-7827 * 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 awardees 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/grantees 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 applicants 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 Systems of Records, [67]NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and [68]NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). 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 Division of Administrative Services National Science Foundation Arlington, VA 22230 [69]Policies and Important Links | [70]Privacy | [71]FOIA | [72]Help | [73]Contact NSF | [74]Contact Web Master | [75]SiteMap National Science Foundation The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 | TDD: (800) 281-8749 Last Updated: 11/07/06 [76]Text Only [x.gif] References 1. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#toc 2. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13001 3. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13001 4. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13001 5. http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/meritreviewcriteria.pdf 6. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_sigchanges.jsp 7. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/aag_sigchanges.jsp 8. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_index.jsp 9. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf11001 10. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf11001 11. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf11001 12. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2gxi 13. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp 14. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2j 15. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2j 16. mailto:fkamalab@nsf.gov 17. mailto:rmrobins@nsf.gov 18. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg 19. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide 20. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#summary 21. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#pgm_intr_txt 22. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#pgm_desc_txt 23. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#awd_info 24. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#elig 25. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#prep 26. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#prep 27. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#budg_cst_shr_txt 28. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#dates 29. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#fastlane 30. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#review 31. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#reviewcrit 32. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#reviewprot 33. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#awardadmin 34. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#awardnotify 35. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#grantcond 36. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#reportreq 37. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#cont 38. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06561/nsf06561.htm#othpgm 39. http://cedarweb.hao.ucar.edu/wiki/images/0/05/CEDAR.pdf 40. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg 41. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov 42. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide 43. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov 44. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm 45. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov 46. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp 47. http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp 48. mailto:support@grants.gov 49. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_3ex1.pdf 50. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/meritreview/ 51. http://www.nsf.gov/news/strategicplan/nsfstrategicplan_2011_2016.pdf 52. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di 53. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di 54. http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF 55. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov 56. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag 57. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag 58. mailto:fkamalab@nsf.gov 59. mailto:rmrobins@nsf.gov 60. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov 61. mailto:smaynard@nsf.gov 62. mailto:support@grants.gov 63. http://www.nsf.gov/ 64. http://www.grants.gov/ 65. http://www.nsf.gov/ 66. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov 67. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/ SOR_PA_NSF-50_Principal_Investigator_Proposal_File.pdf 68. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/ SOR_PA_NSF-51_Reviewer_Proposal_File.pdf 69. http://www.nsf.gov/policies 70. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/privacy.jsp 71. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/foia.jsp 72. http://www.nsf.gov/help/ 73. http://www.nsf.gov/help/contact.jsp 74. mailto:webmaster@nsf.gov 75. http://www.nsf.gov/help/sitemap.jsp 76. http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/referrer