Materials Innovation Platforms (MIP) (nsf19526) | NSF

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

Award Information

The number of awards will depend on the availability of funds and the quality of the proposals.

Awards totaling $15,000,000 to $25,000,000 over a five-year period are anticipated. The proposed budget must be commensurate with the scope of the project and thoroughly justified in the proposal. MIP funding is provided yearly. Pending the availability of funds, it is anticipated that $12,000,000 will be available in Fiscal Year 2019.

Eligibility Information

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

Proposal Review Information 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

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

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

I. INTRODUCTION

Recognizing the ever-increasing complexity of materials research that requires the close collaboration of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams with access to cutting-edge tools, the Division of Materials Research (DMR) established the Materials Innovation Platforms (MIP) Program in 2015. These Platforms seek to substantially increase the rate at which new materials and novel materials phenomena/properties are discovered, understood, and developed.

Materials Innovation Platforms are neither typical research centers nor traditional user facilities. MIPs employ a highly convergent approach, across multiple dimensions:

Use an integrated approach to meet the critical needs for research, education/training, and research infrastructure;
Foster a culture of knowledge sharing among in-house research scientists, external users, and other contributors;
Enable iterative, closed-loop efforts across materials synthesis/processing, materials characterization, and theory/modeling/simulation; and
Empower the merging of ideas, approaches and technologies from widely diverse fields of knowledge (including the domain science fields relevant to the proposed MIP, as well as data science and informatics) for the purpose of accelerating discovery and development of novel materials, as well as fostering their eventual deployment.

These are 4 pillars of MIP convergence, which are designed to stimulate and accelerate discovery and innovation in a new paradigm and also distinguish MIPs from other programs.

The major activities of a MIP include:

Develop next-generation experimental and computational tools, as well as advancing the capabilities of the current state-of-the-art tools;
Conduct in-house research by a transdisciplinary team in a focused topic designed to address a grand challenge of fundamental science and meet a national need;
Operate a user facility that provides unique materials research tools, samples, data, and technical services open to a diverse community of external researchers at various institutions; and
Serve as an educational focal point for training the next generation of tool developers and users.

In this manner, a MIP will build and nurture a scientific ecosystem, which includes in-house research scientists, external users and other contributors who share tools, codes, samples, data, and know-how in order to strengthen collaboration among the scientists and enable them to work together in a new modality. MIPs, collectively, contribute to the creation of a new culture for future scientific endeavor.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Materials Innovation Platforms (MIP) is a mid-scale infrastructure program in DMR that supports transdisciplinary research and education, cutting-edge tools, and knowledge sharing in key enabling areas of national priority. The MIP Program aligns with the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI), which strives to "discover, manufacture, and deploy advanced materials twice as fast, at a fraction of the cost." A 2014 NSF Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) Advisory Subcommittee study, Closing the Loop: Materials Instrumentation, points out the opportunity to advance materials science through targeted, shared, mid-scale infrastructure investments. The MIP Program is designed to fill this need. It also embodies several of NSF's "Ten Big Ideas," including Growing Convergence Research, Harnessing the Data Revolution, Mid-scale Research Infrastructure. The research topics of specific MIP proposals may also be of high relevance to other Big Ideas such as Future Work at the Human-Technology Frontier, Quantum Leap, and/or Understanding the Rules of Life.

Fiscal Year 2019 MIP Competition

As highlighted in the Closing the Loop: Materials Instrumentation report, advancing the field of materials synthesis represents a unique opportunity to reclaim US leadership in this domain which could lead to the next generation of breakthroughs in materials science and engineering. As an example, the report states, "The growing areas of soft and bio-inspired materials are just beginning to explore rich new horizons of complexity and functionality that require their own set of innovative synthesis techniques." This second MIP competition focuses on the convergence of materials research with biological sciences for developing new materials. New ways of synthesis/processing of complex materials with novel functionalities are of high priority. Scalable and sustainable synthesis/processing approaches are also of high interest. In addition, MIPs are expected to make full use of opportunities provided by engaging the emerging field of data science.

A successful MIP must be transformational, focus on a grand challenge or challenges of fundamental research, and align with national priorities. Some grand challenges are identified in, as examples, the 2007 National Academy Report Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics: The Science of the World Around Us, 2008 National Academy Report Inspired by Biology: From Molecules to Materials to Machines, 2012 Biomaterials Workshop Report, and 2016 Workshop Report on Frontiers in Polymer Science and Engineering. A common theme in these reports is that many of these grand challenges will not be overcome by one discipline alone and must be addressed through a transdisciplinary approach that utilizes expertise in materials science, physics, chemistry, engineering, biology, mathematics, and computer science. A convergence of ideas, approaches and technologies from diverse fields of knowledge will stimulate innovation and discovery. A highly successful MIP builds a new Platform for complex materials through convergence of expertise from various fields that have different perspectives to address a common grand challenge of multiple disciplines.

Additional links for useful documents and related activities:

2016 Biomaterials Midscale Tools Workshop (While this MIP solicitation is not limited to biomaterials, some instruments identified in the report of this workshop can be considered.)
A living foundry for Synthetic Biological Materials: A synthetic biology roadmap to new advanced materials
DARPA Living Foundries
Synthetic biology in China, UK and US
The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship

Additional Information for MIP

The complexity and challenge of activities addressed by this program require a transformative approach to discovering and developing new materials, predicting and optimizing properties of these materials, and informing the design of materials systems. MIPs are driven by the MGI approach with materials synthesis/processing, materials characterization, and theory/modeling/simulation applied to targeted outcomes. Accordingly, the proposed activities must close-the-loop, i.e., be a collaborative and iterative process wherein, for example, theory guides computational simulation, computational simulation guides experiments, and experiments further inform theory. It should be noted that the loop can be entered from any point, not just from theory, and can be bidirectional (e.g., experimental results improve simulation). Through this tightly connected iterative process, new discoveries are anticipated to occur at a faster rate than conventional modes of collaboration. Advances in each of the three areas (synthesis/processing, characterization, and theory/modeling/simulation) are expected for MIPs. The interactive, closed-loop process is required for in-house research and is expected for the user program as a whole, but not required for individual user projects. In addition, MIPs are expected to engage the emerging data science, including artificial intelligence and/or machine learning capabilities, as appropriate. Accelerating the closed-loop process by leveraging artificial intelligence, automation, and decision theory could eventually lead to autonomous materials discovery.

This collaborative and iterative process requires a team with the requisite expertise in synthesis/processing, characterization, theory/modeling/simulation, etc. The proposed projects are directed by a team of at least three Senior Personnel with complementary expertise. The whole MIP team also includes Senior Personnel and technical staff with expertise in tool development, data, and user facility operation. Advancement in characterization methodologies and theory/modeling/simulation approaches that benefit the research endeavor is also expected. While all instruments needed for world-class research facilities will be considered, a high priority for NSF is to support instruments with unique capabilities.

MIPs engage in a limited number of education and outreach activities that integrate strategically with the research goals, further the training mission, and increase the broader impacts. Training includes next-generation instrument developers, users, and in-house research participants. Outreach activities are designed to attract users from diverse communities and level of expertise. MIPs are expected to demonstrate a significant commitment to the involvement of underrepresented groups (e.g., women, underrepresented minorities, persons with disabilities) as MIP participants and as users.

MIPs provide access to existing and new instrumentation, techniques, samples, software, modeling and simulation tools, data, databases and other resources to the broad scientific community. MIPs go beyond traditional user facilities that provide access to instrumentation; they create and nurture scientific ecosystems by bringing together the scientific and technical expertise of in-house researchers, users, and other contributors through knowledge and data sharing. Specifically, the tools supported by NSF MIP funding are for shared use by users and for in-house research; each MIP also develops and uses mechanisms to share codes, samples, data, and know-how among a community of practitioners (in-house researchers, users, and other contributors). A MIP is also expected to leverage the emerging field of data science as part of the integration and iteration of experiment and computational efforts. and, as appropriate, to utilize cloud resources for data storage and sharing. Because of these efforts and a transdisciplinary team, each MIP is a scientific ecosystem that promotes cross-fertilization of ideas and enables new science that cannot be accomplished otherwise.

MIPs must support broad accessibility to a rich national user base at universities, national laboratories, and industry. They operate user facilities that are open to a diverse community of external and internal researchers at various institutions. To promote usage of their facilities, MIPs do not charge academic users in the United States for reasonable time with experts, technicians, or use of equipment acquired through the MIP award. Major equipment acquired through the MIP funding must devote at least 50% of the instrument operational time to external users (defined as those who are neither MIP participants nor affiliated with the institutions where MIP user facilities are located). Users may be charged for consumables and supplies, especially those that are expensive and not routine. Full cost recovery is applied to proprietary research.

Platforms reside at academic institutions where the appropriate infrastructure, including laboratory, common space and sharing of equipment, already exists to assist in the proposed research and add value to the MIP user facility. MIPs are also funded for acquisition and development of new equipment, tools, and supporting technologies that will position and maintain the facility at the frontier of the proposed materials research area. Tools (or suite of tools) acquired or developed through a MIP award are novel and/or unique and go beyond the scope and scale of those tools that are acquired through other NSF modes of support, such as the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program.

The MIP Program will support acquisition and development of instruments, software and databases; service contracts on purchased equipment; professional staffing including support for the principal investigators, other senior personnel and technicians; and a limited number of students and postdoctoral researchers. Five-year awards totaling $15,000,000 to $25,000,000 for the award period are anticipated. Equipment acquisition and development is expected to be mainly in the first few years. User facility operation may ramp up over time and is expected to reach a steady state by year 4. Approximately 50% of the MIP funds provided by NSF, after subtracting instrument acquisition and development costs, should be devoted to the user facility operation.

The MIP program will NOT support requests for any of the following:

Construction, renovation or modernization of rooms, buildings or research facilities;
General purpose and supporting equipment. Supporting equipment refers to basic, durable components of a research facility that are integral to its operation (e.g., fume hoods, elevators, laboratory casework, cryogen storage systems, general-purpose computational or data storage systems);
Sustaining infrastructure and/or building systems. This category includes (but is not limited to) the installation of or upgrades to infrastructure related to the supply of power, ventilation, water or research gases, routine multi-purpose computer networks, standard safety features, and other general purpose systems (e.g., toxic waste removal systems, and telecommunications equipment); or
General purpose platforms or environment. This category includes (but is not limited to) general purpose fixed or non-fixed structures and vehicles whose role is to host or transport an instrument.

DMR manages the MIPs through the National Facilities and Instrumentation program in the division. MIPs are awarded as cooperative agreements with an initial commitment of five years, with the possibility of one five-year renewal, subsequent to a rigorous and favorable review by NSF.

III. AWARD INFORMATION

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

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.

See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

Proposals that fail to comply with formatting instructions per the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, the Cover Sheet specifications, or the instructions given below may delay processing or result in the proposal being returned without review.

The Project Description must include the following sections and section headers:

Immediately after submission of the full proposal, please send an e-mail to mip@nsf.gov:

B. Budgetary Information

C. Due Dates

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use FastLane 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.

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Building the Future: Investing in Discovery and Innovation - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 – 2022. 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 strategic objectives 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 must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of 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.

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:

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.

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.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 PAPPG 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:

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.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, or Reverse Site Review.

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by panels, supplemented with ad hoc review as needed. Finalists will be invited for a reverse site visit at NSF. At the reverse site visit, finalists will make oral presentations to a second panel and NSF staff and engage in a question and answer session. NSF reserves the option to conduct a site visit prior to making an award.

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 applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees 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 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 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 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)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* 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.

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.

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

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

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

X. 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 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 (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.E.6 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.

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, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and 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
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Alexandria, VA 22314

Materials Innovation Platforms (MIP)

Program Solicitation
NSF 19-526

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 15-522

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Award Information

Eligibility Information

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Award Administration Information

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

III. AWARD INFORMATION

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

B. Budgetary Information

C. Due Dates

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

B. Review and Selection Process

VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Notification of the Award

B. Award Conditions

C. Reporting Requirements

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

X. OTHER INFORMATION

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

Materials Innovation Platforms (MIP)

Program Solicitation NSF 19-526

Replaces Document(s):NSF 15-522

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Award Information

Eligibility Information

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Award Administration Information

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

III. AWARD INFORMATION

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

B. Budgetary Information

C. Due Dates

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

B. Review and Selection Process

VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Notification of the Award

B. Award Conditions

C. Reporting Requirements

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

X. OTHER INFORMATION

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

Program Solicitation
NSF 19-526

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 15-522