MC 32/12 Gpg Print

User Manual: MC 32/12

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 79

Grant Proposal Guide

EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 26, 2014

NSF 15-1

OMB Control Number 3145-0058

Grant Proposal Guide i NSF 15-1

GRANT PROPOSAL GUIDE

Table of Contents

Chapter I: Pre-Submission Information ............................................................................... I-1

A. NSF Proposal Preparation and Submission ...................................................................................... I-1

B. NSF Programs and Funding Opportunities ........................................................................................ I-1

C. Categories of Funding Opportunities ................................................................................................. I-2

1. Dear Colleague Letter ........................................................................................................... I-2

2. Program Description.............................................................................................................. I-2

3. Program Announcement ....................................................................................................... I-2

4. Program Solicitation .............................................................................................................. I-2

D. Types of Submissions ........................................................................................................................ I-3

1. Letter of Intent ....................................................................................................................... I-3

2. Preliminary Proposal ............................................................................................................. I-3

a. Invite/Not Invite Decisions ........................................................................................ I-3

b. Encourage/Discourage Decisions ............................................................................ I-3

3. Full Proposal ......................................................................................................................... I-4

Proprietary or Privileged Information .................................................................................................. I-4

E. Who May Submit Proposals ............................................................................................................... I-4

Categories of Proposers..................................................................................................................... I-5

1. Universities and Colleges ...................................................................................................... I-5

2. Non-profit, non-academic organizations ............................................................................... I-5

3. For-profit organizations ......................................................................................................... I-5

4. State and Local Governments ............................................................................................... I-5

5. Unaffiliated Individuals .......................................................................................................... I-5

6. Foreign organizations ............................................................................................................ I-5

7. Other Federal agencies ......................................................................................................... I-5

F. When to Submit Proposals ................................................................................................................. I-6

1. Target Dates .......................................................................................................................... I-6

2. Deadline Dates ...................................................................................................................... I-6

Special Exceptions to NSF’s Deadline Date Policy ........................................................................... I-6

Natural or Anthropogenic Disasters ................................................................................................... I-6

Closure of NSF .................................................................................................................... I-6

3. Submission Windows ............................................................................................................ I-6

G. How to Submit Proposals ................................................................................................................... I-7

1. Electronic Requirements ....................................................................................................... I-7

2. Submission Instructions ........................................................................................................ I-7

3. Requirements Relating to Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

Numbers and Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) ............................ I-8

4. NSF ID .................................................................................................................................. I-8

5. Proposal Receipt ................................................................................................................... I-8

H. Proposal Processing .......................................................................................................................... I-9

Chapter II: Proposal Preparation Instructions ..................................................................... II-1

A. Conformance with Instructions for Proposal Preparation ................................................................... II-1

B. Format of the Proposal ....................................................................................................................... II-2

1. Proposal Pagination Instructions ........................................................................................... II-2

2. Proposal Margin and Spacing Requirements ....................................................................... II-2

3. Page Formatting .................................................................................................................... II-3

C. Proposal Contents .............................................................................................................................. II-3

1. Single-Copy Documents ....................................................................................................... II-3

a. Information About Principal Investigators/Project Directors and

co-Principal Investigators/co-Project Directors ........................................................ II-3

Grant Proposal Guide ii NSF 15-1

b. Authorization to Deviate from NSF Proposal Preparation Requirements ................ II-3

c. List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include ...................................... II-3

d. Proprietary or Privileged Information........................................................................ II-4

e. Proposal Certifications ............................................................................................. II-4

2. Sections of the Proposal ....................................................................................................... II-6

a. Cover Sheet ............................................................................................................. II-6

b. Project Summary ...................................................................................................... II-9

c. Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... II-9

d. Project Description ................................................................................................... II-9

(i) Content ....................................................................................................... II-9

(ii) Page Limitations and Inclusion of Uniform Resource Locators

(URLs) within the Project Description ......................................................... II-10

(iii) Results from Prior NSF Support.................................................................. II-10

(iv) Unfunded Collaborations ............................................................................. II-11

(v) Group Proposals ......................................................................................... II-11

(vi) Proposals for Renewed Support ................................................................. II-11

e. References Cited...................................................................................................... II-11

f. Biographical Sketch(es) ........................................................................................... II-11

(i) Senior Personnel ......................................................................................... II-11

(a) Professional Preparation ................................................................ II-11

(b) Appointments ................................................................................. II-12

(d) Synergistic Activities ...................................................................... II-12

(e) Collaborators & Other Affiliations ................................................... II-12

Collaborators and Co-Editors ......................................................... II-12

Graduate Advisors and Postdoctoral Sponsors ............................. II-12

Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor ...................... II-12

(ii) Other Personnel .......................................................................................... II-13

(iii) Equipment Proposals ................................................................................. II-13

g. Budget and Budget Justification ............................................................................... II-13

(i) Salaries and Wages .................................................................................... II-13

(a) Senior Personnel Salaries & Wages Policy ................................... II-13

(b) Administrative and Clerical Salaries & Wages Policy .................... II-14

(d) Confidential Budgetary Information ................................................ II-14

(ii) Fringe Benefits ............................................................................................ II-14

(iii) Equipment ................................................................................................... II-15

(iv) Travel ....................................................................................................... II-15

(a) General .......................................................................................... II-15

(b) Domestic Travel ............................................................................. II-15

(v) Participant Support ...................................................................................... II-15

(vi) Other Direct Costs ....................................................................................... II-16

(a) Materials and Supplies (including Costs of Computing Devices) .. II-16

(b) Publication/Documentation/Dissemination ..................................... II-16

Service Costs) .......................................................................................... II-16

(d) Computer Services ......................................................................... II-16

(e) Subawards ..................................................................................... II-17

(f) Other .......................................................................................... II-17

Visa Costs ...................................................................................... II-17

(vii) Total Direct Costs ........................................................................................ II-18

(viii) Indirect Costs .............................................................................................. II-18

(ix) Total Direct and Indirect Costs .................................................................... II-18

(x) Amount of This Request .............................................................................. II-18

(xi) Cost Sharing................................................................................................ II-18

Grant Proposal Guide iii NSF 15-1

(xii) Allowable and Unallowable Costs ............................................................... II-19

(a) Entertainment ................................................................................. II-19

(b) Meals and Coffee Breaks ............................................................... II-19

h. Current and Pending Support .................................................................................. II-20

i. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources ............................................................. II-20

j. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation ......................................... II-20

k. Appendices ............................................................................................................... II-23

D. Special Guidelines .............................................................................................................................. II-23

1. Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) .................................................................... II-23

2. EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) ................................................... II-24

3. Ideas Lab ............................................................................................................................... II-24

4. Facilitation Award for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities .......................................... II-25

5. Collaborative Proposals ........................................................................................................ II-26

6. Proposals for Equipment ....................................................................................................... II-27

7. Proposals Involving Vertebrate Animals ............................................................................... II-28

8. Proposals Involving Human Subjects .................................................................................... II-30

9. Proposals for Conferences .................................................................................................... II-31

10. Proposals to Support International Travel ............................................................................. II-32

11. Support for Development of NSF Centers ............................................................................ II-32

12. Support for Development of Major Research Equipment and Facilities ............................... II-32

13.1 Projects Requiring High-Performance Computing Resources, Large Amounts of Data

Storage, or Advanced Visualization Resources .................................................................... II-33

Exhibit II-1: Proposal Preparation Checklist ............................................................................................. II-34

Exhibit II-2 Potentially Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest ........................................................................ II-37

Exhibit II-3: Drug-Free Workplace Certification ........................................................................................ II-38

Exhibit II-4 Debarment and Suspension Certification ............................................................................. II-40

Exhibit II-5 Lobbying Certification ............................................................................................................ II-42

Exhibit II-6 Nondiscrimination Certification .............................................................................................. II-43

Exhibit II-7: Definitions of Categories of Personnel .................................................................................. II-44

Chapter III: NSF Proposal Processing and Review .............................................................. III-1

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria .................................................................................................. III-1

Intellectual Merit ................................................................................................................................. III-2

Broader Impacts ................................................................................................................................. III-2

B. Selection of Reviewers ....................................................................................................................... III-2

C. Proposal File Updates ........................................................................................................................ III-3

D. Revisions to Proposals Made During the Review Process ................................................................ III-4

E. Funding Recommendation ................................................................................................................. III-4

F. NSF’s Risk Management Framework and the Decision to Award or Decline Proposals ................... III-4

G. Review Information Provided to PI ..................................................................................................... III-4

H. Release of Grantee Proposal Information .......................................................................................... III-6

Exhibit III-1: NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline ......................................................................... III-8

Chapter IV: Non-Award Decisions and Transactions ........................................................... IV-1

A. Proposal Withdrawal .......................................................................................................................... IV-1

B. Proposals Not Accepted or Returned Without Review ...................................................................... IV-2

C. Declinations ........................................................................................................................................ IV-2

D. Reconsideration ................................................................................................................................. IV-2

E. Resubmission ..................................................................................................................................... IV-4

Chapter V: Renewal Proposals .............................................................................................. V-1

A. Traditional Renewal ............................................................................................................................ V-1

B. Accomplishment-Based Renewal ...................................................................................................... V-1

Grant Proposal Guide iv NSF 15-1

Subject Index ........................................................................................................................

Grant Proposal Guide I-1 NSF 15-1

Chapter I: Pre-Submission Information

A. NSF Proposal Preparation and Submission

Unless specified in an NSF program solicitation, proposals submitted to NSF must be submitted electronically

via use of either the NSF FastLane System or Grants.gov. Further information on each system is provided

below.

• Proposal Preparation and Submission via the NSF FastLane System. The policy and procedural

guidance contained in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) relates specifically to proposals submitted via

the NSF FastLane System. FastLane may be used for proposal preparation, file update, submission

and status checking, and post-award administrative activities. All FastLane functions are accessed by

using a web browser on the Internet. Detailed information about the FastLane System is available from

the FastLane website at https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov.

• Proposal Preparation and Submission via Grants.gov. The policy and procedural guidance

contained in the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide relates specifically to proposals submitted via

Grants.gov. Grants.gov was established as a governmental resource to electronically find grant

opportunities as well as to apply for federal awards. Grants.gov is a central storehouse for information

on over 1,000 grant programs from the 26 Federal grant-making agencies and provides access to

approximately $500 billion annually in awards. Detailed information about Grants.gov is available from

the Grants.gov website at http://www.grants.gov.

Contact with NSF program personnel prior to proposal preparation and submission is encouraged. Some NSF

programs have program solicitations that modify the general provisions of the GPG and/or the Grants.gov

Application Guide, and, in such cases, the guidelines provided in the solicitation must be followed. (See GPG

Section C.4 below for further information on NSF program solicitations.)

B. NSF Programs and Funding Opportunities

NSF does not normally support technical assistance, pilot plant efforts, research requiring security classification,

the development of products for commercial marketing, or market research for a particular project or invention.

Research with disease-related goals, including work on the etiology, diagnosis or treatment of physical or

mental disease, abnormality, or malfunction in human beings or animals, is normally not supported. Animal

models of such conditions or the development or testing of drugs or other procedures for their treatment also are

not eligible for support. However, research in bioengineering, with diagnosis- or treatment-related goals, that

applies engineering principles to problems in biology and medicine while advancing engineering knowledge is

eligible for support. Bioengineering research to aid persons with disabilities also is eligible.

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" is available on NSF's website at:

https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNSF/subscriber/new?qsp=823.

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.

Grant Proposal Guide I-2 NSF 15-1

C. Categories of Funding Opportunities

NSF utilizes a variety of mechanisms to communicate opportunities for research and education support, as well

as to generate proposals. A brief description of each category of funding opportunity follows.

1. Dear Colleague Letter

Dear Colleague Letters (DCLs) are intended to provide general information to the community, clarify or amend

an existing policy or document, or inform the NSF proposer community about upcoming opportunities or special

competitions for supplements to existing awards. In addition, DCLs are often used to draw attention to an

impending change in NSF policies or programs.

2. Program Description

The term "program description" includes broad, general descriptions of programs and activities in NSF

Directorates/Offices and Divisions. Program descriptions are posted on Directorate/Division websites to

encourage the submission of proposals in specific program areas of interest to NSF.

Program descriptions, like program announcements, utilize the generic eligibility and proposal preparation

instructions specified in the GPG, as well as the National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria.

See GPG Chapter III for additional information.

3. Program Announcement

The term "program announcement" refers to formal NSF publications that announce NSF programs. Program

announcements utilize the generic eligibility and proposal preparation guidelines specified in the GPG and

incorporate the NSB-approved merit review criteria.

4. Program Solicitation

The term "program solicitation" refers to formal NSF publications that encourage the submission of proposals in

specific program areas of interest to NSF. They generally are more focused than program announcements, and

normally apply for a limited period of time. Competition among proposals is more precisely defined than with

program announcements, and proposals received compete directly with each other for NSF funding. Program

solicitations are issued when the funding opportunity has one or more of the following features:

• Provides supplemental proposal preparation guidance or deviates from the guidelines established in the

GPG;

• Contains additional specially crafted review criteria relevant to the program;

• Requires submission of a letter of intent (See GPG Chapter I.D.1) or preliminary proposal (See GPG

Chapter I.D.2);

• Deviates from (or restricts) the standard categories of proposers specified in Section E. below;

• Limits the number of proposals that may be submitted by any organization and/or researcher/educator;1

• Requires cost sharing;

• Requires a limitation in indirect (F&A) costs;

• Specifies additional award conditions or reporting requirements;

• Anticipates use of a cooperative agreement; or

1Unless otherwise specified, the term “organization” refers to all categories of proposers.

Grant Proposal Guide I-3 NSF 15-1

• Permits inclusion of the payment of fees to awardees, when appropriate.

D. Types of Submissions

1. Letter of Intent

Some NSF program solicitations require or request submission of a letter of intent (LOI) in advance of

submission of a full proposal. A LOI is not binding. The predominant reason for its use is to help NSF program

staff to gauge the size and range of the competition, enabling earlier selection and better management of

reviewers and panelists. In addition, the information contained in a LOI is used to help avoid potential conflicts

of interest in the review process.

A LOI normally contains the PI's and co-PI's names, a proposed title, a list of possible participating

organizations (if applicable), and a synopsis that describes the work in sufficient detail to permit an appropriate

selection of reviewers. A LOI is not externally evaluated or used to decide on funding. The requirement to

submit a LOI will be identified in the program solicitation, and such letters are submitted electronically to NSF.

Failure to submit a required LOI identified in a program solicitation will result in a full proposal not being

accepted or returned without review.

2. Preliminary Proposal

Some NSF program solicitations require or request submission of a preliminary proposal in advance of

submission of a full proposal. The three predominant reasons for requiring submission of a preliminary proposal

are to:

• reduce the proposers' unnecessary effort in proposal preparation when the chance of success is very

small. This is particularly true of exploratory initiatives when the community senses that a major new

direction is being identified, or competitions that will result in a small number of awards;

• increase the overall quality of the full submission; and

• assist NSF program staff in managing the review process and in the selection of reviewers.

The NSF program solicitation will specify content and submission requirements when preliminary proposals are

to be utilized. Preliminary proposals are prepared by the PI using the Proposal Preparation Module in FastLane.

On the Cover Sheet, the PI clicks on the "Preliminary Proposal" check box. The PI completes only the sections

appropriate to the preliminary proposal. The PI then forwards the proposal to his/her Sponsored Projects Office,

which then submits the preliminary proposal to NSF.

One of the following two types of decisions may be received from NSF upon submission of a preliminary

proposal. The program solicitation will specify the type of decision to be rendered for a particular program.

a. Invite/Not Invite Decisions

This type of mechanism is used when the NSF decision made on the preliminary proposal is final, affecting the

PI's eligibility to submit a full proposal. Only submitters of favorably reviewed preliminary proposals are invited

and eligible to submit full proposals. Invite/Not Invite decisions are generally used where large, complex, or

limited-award competitions are contemplated, such as those used for Centers. The PI and the organization's

Sponsored Projects Office will be electronically notified of NSF's decision to either invite submission of a full

proposal or decline NSF support.

b. Encourage/Discourage Decisions

This type of mechanism is used when the NSF decision made on the preliminary proposal is advisory only. This

means that submitters of both favorably and unfavorably reviewed preliminary proposals are eligible to submit

full proposals. Preliminary proposals that result in encourage/discourage decisions are typically short and

Grant Proposal Guide I-4 NSF 15-1

focused on the activity to be proposed; the NSF advice provided in response to the preliminary proposal is

intended to improve the overall quality of the full proposal. The PI and the organization's Sponsored Projects

Office will be notified of NSF's decision to either encourage or discourage submission of a full proposal.

3. Full Proposal

The full proposal should present the (1) objectives and scientific, engineering, or educational significance of the

proposed work; (2) suitability of the methods to be employed; (3) qualifications of the investigator and the

grantee organization; (4) effect of the activity on the infrastructure of science, engineering and education; and

(5) amount of funding required. It should present the merits of the proposed project clearly and should be

prepared with the care and thoroughness of a paper submitted for publication. The requisite proposal

preparation instructions are contained in GPG Chapter II. Sufficient information should be provided to enable

reviewers to evaluate the proposal in accordance with the two merit review criteria established by the National

Science Board. (See GPG Chapter III for additional information on NSF processing and review of proposals.)

NSF expects strict adherence to the rules of proper scholarship and attribution. The responsibility for proper

scholarship and attribution rests with the authors of a proposal; all parts of the proposal should be prepared with

equal care for this concern. Authors other than the PI (or any co-PI) should be named and acknowledged.

Serious failure to adhere to such standards can result in findings of research misconduct. NSF policies and

rules on research misconduct2 are discussed in the AAG Chapter VII.C, as well as 45 CFR Part 689.

The Metric Conversion Act of 1975, as amended, and Executive Order 12770 of 1991 encourage Federal

agencies to use the Metric System (SI) in procurement, grants and other business-related activities. Proposers

are encouraged to use the Metric System of weights and measures in proposals submitted to the Foundation.

Grantees also are encouraged to use metric units in reports, publications and correspondence relating to

proposals and awards.

Proprietary or Privileged Information

Patentable ideas, trade secrets, privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, disclosure of

which may harm the proposer, should be included in proposals only when such information is necessary to

convey an understanding of the proposed project. Such information must be clearly marked in the proposal and

be appropriately labeled with a legend such as,

"The following is (proprietary or confidential) information that (name of proposing organization)

requests not be released to persons outside the Government, except for purposes of review and

evaluation."

Such information also may be included as a separate statement. If this method is used, the statement must be

submitted electronically as a single-copy document in the Proposal Preparation Module in the FastLane system.

(See also GPG Chapter II.C.1 for further information regarding submission of single-copy documents.)3

The box for "Proprietary or Privileged Information" must be checked on the Cover Sheet when the proposal

contains such information. While NSF will make every effort to prevent unauthorized access to such material,

the Foundation is not responsible or in any way liable for the release of such material. (See also GPG Chapter

III.H.)

E. Who May Submit Proposals

NSF welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists, engineers and educators. The Foundation

strongly encourages women, minorities and persons with disabilities to participate fully in its programs. In

accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex,

2 Research misconduct refers to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF,

reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF. Institutions involved in

international collaborations might find materials provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) "Research Integrity: preventing misconduct and dealing with allegations" useful. See: http://tinyurl.com/l76p3b

3Detailed instructions for submission of proprietary or privileged information is available on the FastLane Website at

http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/help/proprietary.htm.

Grant Proposal Guide I-5 NSF 15-1

national origin or disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

discrimination, under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from NSF, although some programs

may have special requirements that limit eligibility.

Scientists, engineers and educators usually initiate proposals that are officially submitted by their employing

organization. Before formal submission, the proposal may be discussed with appropriate NSF program staff.

Graduate students are not encouraged to submit research proposals, but should arrange to serve as research

assistants to faculty members. Some NSF divisions accept proposals for Doctoral Dissertation Research

Grants when submitted by a faculty member on behalf of the graduate student.

Categories of Proposers

Except where a program solicitation establishes more restrictive eligibility criteria, individuals and organizations

in the following categories may submit proposals:

1. Universities and Colleges  Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community

colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the U.S. acting on behalf of their faculty members.

Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions. Institutions located outside the U.S. fall under

paragraph 6. below.

2. 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.

3. For-profit organizations  U.S. commercial organizations, especially small businesses with strong

capabilities in scientific or engineering research or education. An unsolicited proposal from a commercial

organization may be funded when the project is of special concern from a national point of view, special

resources are available for the work, or the proposed project is especially meritorious. NSF is interested in

supporting projects that couple industrial research resources and perspectives with those of universities;

therefore, it especially welcomes proposals for cooperative projects involving both universities and the private

commercial sector.

4. State and Local Governments  State educational offices or organizations and local school districts

may submit proposals intended to broaden the impact, accelerate the pace, and increase the effectiveness of

improvements in science, mathematics and engineering education in both K-12 and post-secondary levels.

5. Unaffiliated Individuals  Scientists, engineers or educators in the U.S. and U.S. citizens may be

eligible for support, provided that the individual is not employed by, or affiliated with, an organization, and:

• the proposer has demonstrated the capability and has access to any necessary facilities to carry out the

project; and

• the proposer agrees to fiscal arrangements that, in the opinion of the NSF Division of Grants &

Agreements, ensure responsible management of Federal funds.

Unaffiliated individuals must contact the appropriate program prior to preparing and submitting a proposal.

6. Foreign organizations  NSF rarely provides support to foreign organizations. NSF will consider

proposals for cooperative projects involving U.S. and foreign organizations, provided support is requested only

for the U.S. portion of the collaborative effort.

7. Other Federal agencies  NSF does not normally support research or education activities by

scientists, engineers or educators employed by Federal agencies or Federally Funded Research and

Development Centers (FFRDCs). Under unusual circumstances, other Federal agencies and FFRDCs may

submit proposals directly to NSF. A proposed project is only eligible for support if it meets one or more of the

following exceptions, as determined by a cognizant NSF Program Officer:

Grant Proposal Guide I-6 NSF 15-1

• Special Projects. Under exceptional circumstances, research or education projects at other Federal

agencies or FFRDCs that can make unique contributions to the needs of researchers elsewhere or to

other specific NSF objectives may receive NSF support.

• National and International Programs. The Foundation may fund research and logistic support activities

of other Government agencies or FFRDCs directed at meeting the goals of special national and

international research programs for which the Foundation bears special responsibility, such as the U.S.

Antarctic Research Program.

• International Travel Awards. In order to ensure appropriate representation or availability of a particular

expertise at an international conference, staff researchers of other Federal agencies may receive NSF

international travel awards.

Proposers who think their project may meet one of the exceptions listed above must contact a cognizant NSF

Program Officer before preparing a proposal for submission. In addition, a scientist, engineer or educator who

has a joint appointment with a university and a Federal agency (such as a Veterans Administration Hospital, or

with a university and a FFRDC) may submit proposals through the university and may receive support if he/she

is a faculty member of the university, although part of his/her salary may be provided by the Federal agency.

Preliminary inquiry must be made to the appropriate program before preparing a proposal for submission.

F. When to Submit Proposals

Proposers should allow adequate time for processing of proposals (see GPG Chapter I.H for further

information). Many NSF programs accept proposals at any time. Other programs, however, establish due

dates for submission of proposals. The following types of due dates are utilized by NSF:

1. Target Dates: dates after which proposals will still be accepted, although they may miss a particular

panel or committee meeting.

2. Deadline Dates: dates after which proposals will be returned without review by NSF. The deadline

date will be waived only in extenuating circumstances. Such a deviation may be authorized only in accordance

with GPG Chapter II.A.

Special Exceptions to NSF’s Deadline Date Policy

In the event of a natural or anthropogenic disaster, or when NSF is closed due to inclement weather or other

reason that interferes with an organization’s ability to meet a proposal submission deadline, NSF has developed

the following guidelines for use by impacted organizations.

Natural or Anthropogenic Disasters - Flexibility in meeting announced deadline dates because of a natural or

anthropogenic disaster that impacts a proposer’s ability to submit a proposal to NSF may be granted with the

approval of the cognizant NSF Program Officer. Where possible, such requests should be submitted in advance

of the proposal deadline. The Foundation will work with each impacted organization on a case-by-case basis to

address its specific issue(s). Proposers should contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer in the Division/Office

to which they intend to submit their proposal and request authorization to submit a “late proposal.” Proposers

should then follow the written or verbal guidance provided by the cognizant NSF Program Officer. Generally,

NSF permits extension of the deadline by five business days.

Closure of NSF – When NSF is closed due to inclement weather or other reason4, deadline(s) that occurred

during the closure will be extended to the following business day after the closure ends.

3. Submission Windows: designated periods of time during which proposals will be accepted for review

by NSF. It is NSF’s policy that the end date of a submission window converts to, and is subject to, the same

policies as a deadline date.

4 This policy is not intended to cover NSF closures due to lapses in appropriation. In such cases, specific guidance will be

issued, as appropriate.

Grant Proposal Guide I-7 NSF 15-1

These target dates, deadlines, and submission windows are published in specific program descriptions, program

announcements and solicitations that can be obtained electronically through the NSF website.5 Unless

otherwise stated in a program announcement or solicitation, proposals must be received by the specified date.

If the deadline date falls on a weekend, it will be extended to the following Monday; if the date falls on a Federal

holiday, it will be extended to the following business day. Unless otherwise specified in a program solicitation

that has an identified deadline date, proposals must be received by 5 p.m. submitter's local time on the

established deadline date.6

G. How to Submit Proposals

1. Electronic Requirements

Proposals to NSF must be submitted electronically via the NSF FastLane System or via use of Grants.gov. For

proposals prepared and submitted via Grants.gov, the guidelines specified in the NSF Grants.gov Application

Guide apply.

For proposers who cannot submit electronically, an authorization to deviate from the electronic submission

requirements must be approved in advance of submission of the paper proposal in accordance with GPG

Chapter II.A.

2. Submission Instructions

The same work/proposal cannot be funded twice. If the proposer envisions review by multiple programs, more

than one program may be designated on the Cover Sheet. The submission of duplicate or substantially similar

proposals concurrently for review by more than one program without prior NSF approval will result in the return

of the redundant proposals. (See GPG Chapter IV.B for further information.)

Research proposals to the Biological Sciences Directorate ONLY (not proposals for conferences) cannot be

duplicates of proposals to any other Federal agency for simultaneous consideration. The only exceptions to this

rule are: (1) when the program officers at relevant Federal agencies have previously agreed to joint review and

possible joint funding of the proposal; or (2) proposals for PIs who are beginning investigators (individuals who

have not been a principal investigator (PI) or co-principal investigator (co-PI) on a Federally funded award with

the exception of doctoral dissertation, postdoctoral fellowship or research planning grants). For proposers who

qualify under this latter exception, the box for "Beginning Investigator" must be checked on the Cover Sheet.

In submission of a proposal for funding, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) is required to

provide certain proposal certifications. (See GPG Chapter II.C.1.e for a listing.) This process can occur

concurrently with submission of the proposal for those organizations where the individual authorized to submit a

proposal to NSF also is a designated AOR, or as a separate function for those organizations that choose to

keep the certification process separate from the submission function. For those organizations that designate

separate authorities in FastLane for these functions, the AOR must provide the required certifications within five

working days following the electronic submission of the proposal.

A proposal may not be processed until NSF has received the complete proposal (including the electronic

certifications from the AOR.)

5A listing of upcoming target dates and deadlines, sorted by date and by program area is available electronically on the NSF

Website at: http://nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?org=NSF&ord=date.

6 Letters of intent or preliminary proposals, unless otherwise specified, also follow the 5 p.m. submitter's local time standard.

Grant Proposal Guide I-8 NSF 15-1

3. Requirements Relating to Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Numbers and

Registration in the System for Award Management (SAM)

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a policy directive (September 14, 2010, 75 FR 22706)

which requires proposers to provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) DUNS number when applying for a new award

or renewal of an award under Federal grants or cooperative agreements. In accordance with this mandate, NSF

requires that organizations registering to use NSF’s electronic systems have a valid and active SAM registration

and have a valid DUNS number. NSF will also validate that each proposer’s DUNS number and SAM

registration are active and valid prior to allowing submission of a proposal to NSF. Any subrecipients named in

the proposal also are required to obtain a DUNS number and register in FastLane. Subrecipients named in the

proposal, however, do not need to be registered in SAM.

The SAM is the primary registrant database for the U.S. Government. SAM collects, validates, stores, and

disseminates data in support of agency acquisition missions, including Federal agency contract and assistance

awards. This SAM registration must be maintained with current information at all times during which the

organization has an active award or a proposal under consideration by NSF. Failure to comply with the SAM

registration requirement prior to proposal submission may impact the processing of the proposal. To register in

the SAM, go to https://www.sam.gov. Proposers are advised that entity registration will become active after

three to five days when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) validates your Tax ID Number.

The organization also is responsible for updating all SAM registration information as it changes. Once an award

is made, failure to maintain current and complete information within SAM will impact receipt of funding. To

maintain an active status in SAM, an organization’s registration must be renewed and revalidated at least every

12 months from the date of the previous registration. If the registration is not renewed, it will expire. An expired

registration will impact the organization’s ability to submit proposals or receive grant payments.

SAM is the NSF system of record for organizational financial information. The Legal Business Name and

Physical Address information are automatically input into the proposer’s SAM registration from D&B, and it is the

organization’s responsibility to keep this information updated.

4. NSF ID

The NSF ID is a unique numerical identifier assigned to users by NSF. It is a random nine-digit number

beginning with three zeroes. The NSF ID will be used throughout NSF’s electronic systems7 as a login ID and

identification verification.

Submission of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) only will be requested where it is necessary for business

purposes, e.g., financial reimbursement. An SSN is solicited under NSF Act of 1950, as amended.

5. Proposal Receipt

Once the proposal is submitted, PIs can access the number assigned to the proposal via use of NSF’s

electronic systems. If a proposal number is not reflected in the electronic systems, contact the Help Desk at

(800) 673-6188 or (703) 292-8142 or by e-mail to fastlane@nsf.gov.

Cognizant program information is available through use of NSF’s electronic systems, including the FastLane

“Proposal Status Inquiry” function for PIs, and through the “Recent Proposals” report for Sponsored Projects

Offices, or through the Grants Application Status in Research.gov. Communications about the proposal should

be addressed to the cognizant NSF Program Officer with reference to the proposal number. Proposers are

strongly encouraged to use NSF’s electronic systems to verify the status of their submission to NSF.

7 NSF has developed a matrix entitled, Electronic Capabilities Modernization Status, that lists NSF’s electronic capabilities,

and whether they can be found in FastLane, Research.gov or both. This matrix will be updated as appropriate, independent

of the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide revision cycle. The current version is located at:

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/estatus_matrix/dec14.pdf.

Grant Proposal Guide I-9 NSF 15-1

H. Proposal Processing

Proposers should allow up to six months for programmatic review and processing (see GPG Chapter III for

additional information on the NSF merit review process). In addition, proposers should be aware that the NSF

Division of Grants and Agreements generally makes awards within 30 days after the program division/office

makes its recommendation. Grants being made to organizations that have not received an NSF award within

the preceding five years, or involving special situations (such as coordination with another Federal agency or a

private funding source), cooperative agreements, and other unusual arrangements may require additional

review and processing time. Proposals that are time-sensitive (e.g., conference and group travel) will be

accepted for review only if, in the opinion of the cognizant Program Officer, they are received in sufficient time to

permit appropriate NSF review and processing to support an award in advance of the activity to be supported.

Every effort is made to reach a decision and inform the proposer promptly. Until an award is made, NSF is not

responsible for any costs incurred by the proposing organization.

Grant Proposal Guide II-1 NSF 15-1

Chapter II: Proposal Preparation Instructions

Each proposing organization that is new to NSF or has not had an active NSF assistance award within the

previous five years should be prepared to submit basic organization and management information and

certifications, when requested, to the applicable award-making division within BFA. The requisite information is

described in the NSF Prospective New Awardee Guide. The information contained in this Guide will assist the

organization in preparing documents which the National Science Foundation requires to conduct administrative

and financial reviews of the organization. This Guide also serves as a means of highlighting the accountability

requirements associated with Federal awards.

To facilitate proposal preparation, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding proposal preparation and

submission are available electronically on the NSF website.8

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF’s mission, as

articulated in Investing in Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation’s Future: NSF Strategic Plan, 2014-

2018. 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 NSF awardee organizations. These organizations

must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (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 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, organizations, 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. Conformance with Instructions for Proposal Preparation

It is important that all proposals conform to the instructions provided in the GPG or the NSF Grants.gov

Application Guide. Conformance is required and will be strictly enforced unless an authorization to deviate from

standard proposal preparation requirements has been approved. NSF will not accept or will return without review

proposals that are not consistent with these instructions. See GPG Chapter IV.B for additional information. NSF

authorization to deviate from these instructions must be received prior to proposal submission. Deviations may

be authorized in one of two ways:

1. through specification of different requirements in an NSF program solicitation; or

2. by the written approval of the cognizant NSF Assistant Director/Office Head or designee. These

approvals to deviate from NSF proposal preparation instructions may cover a particular program or

programs or, in rare instances, an individual deviation for a particular proposal.

Proposers may deviate from these instructions only to the extent authorized. Proposals must include an

authorization to deviate from standard NSF proposal preparation instructions in one of the following ways, as

appropriate: (a) by identifying the solicitation number that authorized the deviation in the appropriate block on the

Cover Sheet; or (b) for individual deviations, by identifying the name, date and title of the NSF official authorizing

the deviation.9 Further instructions are available on the FastLane website.

8FAQs regarding FastLane proposal preparation and submission also are available electronically on the FastLane Website.

9Requests for approval of a deviation from NSF’s electronic submission requirement must be forwarded to the cognizant NSF

program for review and approval prior to submission of the paper proposal.

Grant Proposal Guide II-2 NSF 15-1

B. Format of the Proposal

Prior to electronic submission, it is strongly recommended that proposers conduct an administrative review to

ensure that proposals comply with the proposal preparation guidelines established in the GPG or the NSF

Grants.gov Application Guide. GPG Exhibit II-1 and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide Chapter VII, contain a

proposal preparation checklist that may be used to assist in this review. The checklist is not intended to be an

all-inclusive repetition of the required proposal contents and associated proposal preparation guidelines. It is,

however, meant to highlight certain critical items so they will not be overlooked when the proposal is prepared.

Upon entering the proposal preparation module in FastLane, the PI will be prompted to select:

1. Whether the proposal is:

• A collaborative proposal from one organization (see GPG Chapter II.D.5.a);

• A collaborative proposal from multiple organizations (see GPG Chapter II.D.5.b); or

• Not a collaborative proposal.

2. The type of proposal being developed:

• RAPID (see GPG Chapter II.D.1);

• EAGER (see GPG Chapter II.D.2);

• Research - other than RAPID or EAGER (see GPG Chapter II);

• Ideas Lab (see GPG Chapter II.D.3);

• Equipment (see GPG Chapter II.D.6);

• Conference (see GPG Chapter II.D.9);

• International Travel (see GPG Chapter II.D.10);

• Fellowship (see relevant funding opportunity); or

• Facility/Center (see relevant funding opportunity).

The information noted above will be used by FastLane to determine the applicable proposal preparation business

rules that must be followed. Effective with this implementation of the PAPPG, FastLane will begin using these

rules to check for compliance prior to submission to NSF. Proposers are strongly advised to review the

applicable sections of the GPG pertinent to the type of proposal being developed PRIOR to submission.

1. Proposal Pagination Instructions

Proposers are advised that FastLane does not automatically paginate a proposal. Each section of the proposal

that is uploaded as a file must be individually paginated prior to being uploaded to the electronic system.

2. Proposal Margin and Spacing Requirements

The proposal must conform to the following requirements:

a. Use one of the following typefaces identified below:

• Arial10, Courier New, or Palatino Linotype at a font size of 10 points or larger;

• Times New Roman at a font size of 11 points or larger; or

• Computer Modern family of fonts at a font size of 11 points or larger.

A font size of less than 10 points may be used for mathematical formulas or equations, figures, table or diagram

captions and when using a Symbol font to insert Greek letters or special characters. PIs are cautioned, however,

that the text must still be readable.

b. No more than six lines of text within a vertical space of one inch.

c. Margins, in all directions, must be at least an inch.

10 Macintosh users also may use Helvetica and Palatino typefaces.

Grant Proposal Guide II-3 NSF 15-1

These requirements apply to all uploaded sections of a proposal, including supplementary documentation.

While line spacing (single-spaced, double-spaced, etc.) is at the discretion of the proposer, established page

limits must be followed. Individual program solicitations, however, may require different type size, margin or line

spacing requirements.

3. Page Formatting

Proposers are strongly encouraged to use only a standard, single-column format for the text. A two-column

format should be avoided since it can cause difficulties when reviewing the document electronically.

The guidelines specified above establish the minimum type size requirements; however, PIs are advised that

readability is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate font for use in

the proposal. Small type size makes it difficult for reviewers to read the proposal; consequently, the use

of small type not in compliance with the above guidelines may be grounds for NSF to return the proposal

without review. Adherence to type size and line spacing requirements also is necessary to ensure that no

proposer will have an unfair advantage, by using smaller type or line spacing to provide more text in the

proposal.

C. Proposal Contents

1. Single-Copy Documents

Certain categories of information that are submitted in conjunction with a proposal are for "NSF Use Only." As

such, the information is not provided to reviewers for use in the review of the proposal. With the exception of

proposal certifications (which are submitted via the Authorized Organizational Representative function11), these

documents should be submitted electronically via the FastLane Proposal Preparation Module. A summary of

each of these categories follows:

a. Information About Principal Investigators (PIs)/Project Directors (PDs) and co-Principal

Investigators (co-PIs)/co-Project Directors (co-PDs)

NSF is committed to providing equal opportunities for participation in its programs and promoting the full use of

the Nation's research and engineering resources. To aid in meeting these objectives, NSF requests information

on the gender, race, ethnicity and disability status of individuals named as PIs/co-PIs on proposals and awards.

Except for the required information about current or previous Federal research support and the name(s) of the

PI/co-PI, submission of the information is voluntary, and individuals who do not wish to provide the personal

information should check the box(es) provided for that purpose.

b. Authorization to Deviate from NSF Proposal Preparation Requirements (if applicable)

Instructions for obtaining authorization to deviate from NSF proposal preparation instructions are provided in

GPG Chapter II.A.

c. List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include (optional)

Proposers may include a list of suggested reviewers who they believe are especially well qualified to review the

proposal. Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not review the proposal, indicating why.

These suggestions are optional. GPG Exhibit II-2 contains information on conflicts of interest that may be useful

in preparation of this list.

The cognizant Program Officer handling the proposal considers the suggestions and may contact the proposer

for further information. The decision whether or not to use the suggestions, however, remains with the Program

Officer.

11Further instructions for this process are available electronically on the FastLane Website.

Grant Proposal Guide II-4 NSF 15-1

d. Proprietary or Privileged Information (if applicable)

Instructions for submission of proprietary or privileged information are provided in GPG Chapter I.D.3.

e. Proposal Certifications

With the exception of the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL) identified below, the procedures for

submission of the proposal certifications differ from those used with other single-copy documents. The AOR

must use the "Authorized Organizational Representative function" in FastLane to electronically sign and submit

the proposal certifications. It is the proposing organization's responsibility to assure that only properly authorized

individuals sign in this capacity.12

The required proposal certifications are as follows:

• Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) or Individual Proposer: The

AOR is required to complete certifications regarding the accuracy and completeness of statements

contained in the proposal, as well as to certify that the organization (or individual) agrees to accept the

obligation to comply with award terms and conditions.

• Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest: The AOR is required to complete certifications stating that

the organization has implemented and is enforcing a written policy on conflicts of interest (COI),

consistent with the provisions of AAG Chapter IV.A.; that, to the best of his/her knowledge, all financial

disclosures required by the conflict of interest policy were made; and that conflicts of interest, if any,

were, or prior to the organization’s expenditure of any funds under the award, will be, satisfactorily

managed, reduced or eliminated in accordance with the organization’s conflict of interest policy.

Conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated, and research that proceeds

without the imposition of conditions or restrictions when a conflict of interest exists, must be disclosed to

NSF via use of NSF’s electronic systems.

• Drug-Free Workplace: The AOR is required to complete a certification regarding the Drug-Free

Workplace Act. See GPG Exhibit II-3 for the full text of the Drug-Free Workplace Certification.

• Debarment and Suspension: The AOR is required to complete a certification regarding Debarment

and Suspension. See GPG Exhibit II-4 for the full text of the Debarment and Suspension Certification.

• Certification Regarding Lobbying: When the proposal exceeds $100,000, the AOR is required to

complete a certification regarding lobbying restrictions. The Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans

and Cooperative Agreements is included in full text on the FastLane submission screen as well as in

GPG Exhibit II-5. The box for "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities" must be checked on the Cover Sheet

only if, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the certification, submission of the SF LLL is required.13

• Certification Regarding Nondiscrimination: The AOR is required to complete a certification regarding

compliance with NSF nondiscrimination regulations and policies. See GPG Exhibit II-6 for the full text of

the Nondiscrimination Certification. This certification sets forth the nondiscrimination obligations with

which all grantees must comply. These obligations also apply to subrecipients or contractors under the

award. The proposer, therefore, shall obtain the NSF Nondiscrimination Certification from each

organization that applies to be, or serves as a subrecipient or contractor under the award (for other than

the provision of commercially available supplies, materials, equipment or general support services) prior

to entering into the subaward or contract arrangement.

• Certification Regarding Flood Hazard Insurance: Two sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of

1968 (42 USC § 4012a and § 4106) bar Federal agencies from giving financial assistance for acquisition

or construction purposes in any area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

as having special flood hazards unless the:

12Detailed instructions for completion of this process are available electronically on the FastLane Website.

13Detailed instructions for submission of the SF LLL are available on the FastLane Website.

Grant Proposal Guide II-5 NSF 15-1

(1) community in which that area is located participates in the national flood insurance program; and

(2) building (and any related equipment) is covered by adequate flood insurance.

By electronically signing the Certification Pages, AORs for prospective grantees located in FEMA-

designated special flood hazard areas are certifying that adequate flood insurance has been or will be

obtained in the following situations:

(1) for NSF grants for the construction of a building or facility, regardless of the dollar amount of the

grant; and

(2) for other NSF grants when more than $25,000 has been budgeted in the proposal for repair,

alteration or improvement (construction) of a building or facility.

Prospective grantees should contact their local government or a federally-insured financial institution to

determine what areas are identified as having special flood hazards and the availability of flood

insurance in their community.

• Certification Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)14: The AOR is required to

complete a certification that the institution has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the

responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral

researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research.

Additional information on NSF’s RCR policy is available in the AAG Chapter IV.B. While training plans

are not required to be included in proposals submitted to NSF, institutions are advised that they are

subject to review upon request.

 Certification Regarding Organizational Support: The AOR is required to complete a certification that

there is organizational support for the proposal as required by Section 526 of the America COMPETES

Reauthorization Act of 2010. This support extends to the portion of the proposal developed to satisfy the

broader impacts review criterion as well as the intellectual merit review criterion, and any additional

review criteria specified in the solicitation. Organizational support will be made available, as described in

the proposal, in order to address the broader impacts and intellectual merit activities to be undertaken.

• Certification Regarding Federal Tax Obligations: When the proposal exceeds $5,000,000, the AOR

is required to complete a certification regarding Federal tax obligations. By electronically signing the

Certification pages, the AOR certifies that, to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, the proposing

organization:

(1) has filed all Federal tax returns required during the three years preceding this certification;

(2) has not been convicted of a criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and

(3) has not, more than 90 days prior to this certification, been notified of any unpaid Federal tax

assessment for which the liability remains unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of an

installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been approved by the Internal Revenue

Service and is not in default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous administrative or

judicial proceeding.

• Certification Regarding Unpaid Federal Tax Liability: If the proposer is a corporation, the AOR (or

equivalent) is required to complete a certification that the corporation has no unpaid Federal tax liability

that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or

lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority

responsible for collecting the tax liability.

14 A wide array of information exists to help inform development of an institution’s RCR training plan. For example, many

professional societies as well as governmental licensing authorities for professional scientists and engineers have adopted

policies or best practices that might be usefully considered. In addition, research is illuminating existing practices

surrounding ethical issues, and providing an evaluation of pedagogical innovations in ethics education.

Grant Proposal Guide II-6 NSF 15-1

• Certification Regarding Criminal Convictions: If the proposer is a corporation, the AOR (or

equivalent) is required to complete a certification that the corporation has not been convicted of a felony

criminal violation under any Federal law within the 24 months preceding the date on which the

certification is signed.

2. Sections of the Proposal

The sections described below represent the body of a research proposal submitted to NSF. Except where noted

in a program solicitation, all sections are required parts of the research proposal, and must be submitted

electronically via the Proposal Preparation Module in FastLane or via Grants.gov. 15 Failure to submit the

required sections will result in the proposal not being accepted16, or being returned without review. See GPG

Chapter IV.B for additional information.

A full research proposal submitted via FastLane17 must contain the following sections:

a. Cover Sheet

b. Project Summary

c. Table of Contents

d. Project Description

e. References Cited

f. Biographical Sketch(es)

g. Budget and Budget Justification

h. Current and Pending Support

i. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

j. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

• Data Management Plan

• Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan (if applicable)

Proposal preparation instructions for RAPID, EAGER, collaborative, conference, equipment, and international

travel grant proposals, or program solicitations may deviate from the above content requirements.

All proposals to NSF will be reviewed utilizing the two NSB-approved merit review criteria described in

greater length in GPG Chapter III.

a. Cover Sheet

There are four major components of the Cover Sheet. A number of the boxes contained on the Cover Sheet are

electronically pre-filled as part of the FastLane login process. The information requested on the Cover Sheet is

as follows:

(1) Awardee & Project/Performance Site Primary Location

The information on the Awardee Organization is pre-filled on the Cover Sheet based on the login information

entered.

15Requests for approval of a deviation from NSF’s electronic submission requirement must be forwarded to the cognizant

NSF program for review and approval prior to submission of the paper proposal.

16 Proposal Not Accepted is defined as FastLane will not permit submission of the proposal.

17 See also the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. Grants.gov may use different naming conventions, and sections may

appear in a different order than in FastLane, however, the content is the same.

Grant Proposal Guide II-7 NSF 15-1

(2) Program Description/Announcement/Solicitation Number

Proposers are required to select the applicable program description, announcement, or solicitation. If the

proposal is not submitted in response to a specific program description, announcement, or solicitation,

proposers should select "Grant Proposal Guide."

Proposals submitted with "Grant Proposal Guide" selected that are directed to Division/Program combinations

with active program descriptions will default to the nearest target date for that program. Proposers are advised to

select "No Closing Date" when the proposal is not submitted in response to any relevant NSF funding opportunity

(which includes program descriptions, announcements, or solicitations).

(3) NSF Unit of Consideration

Proposers must follow instructions for selection of an applicable NSF Division/Office and Program(s) to which the

proposal should be directed.

(4) Remainder of the Cover Sheet

(a) Title of Proposed Project

The title of the project must be brief, scientifically or technically valid, intelligible to a scientifically or technically

literate reader, and suitable for use in the public press. NSF may edit the title of a project prior to making an

award.

(b) Budget and Duration Information

The proposed duration for which support is requested must be consistent with the nature and complexity of the

proposed activity. Grants are normally awarded for up to three years but may be awarded for periods of up to

five years. The Foundation encourages PIs to request awards for durations of three to five years when such

durations are necessary for completion of the proposed work and are technically and managerially

advantageous. Specification of a desired start date for the project is important and helpful to NSF staff; however,

requests for specific start dates may not be met. Except in special situations, requested start dates must allow at

least six months for NSF review, processing and decision. Should unusual situations (e.g., a long lead time for

procurement) create problems regarding the proposed start date, the PI should consult his/her organization’s

Sponsored Projects Office.

Information (including address information) regarding the PI is derived from login information and is not entered

when preparing the Cover Sheet. The proposal also may identify up to four additional co-Principal Investigators.

Each individual's name and either NSF ID or primary registered e-mail address, must be entered in the boxes

provided.

(d) Previous NSF Award

If the proposal is a renewal proposal, or an accomplishment-based renewal proposal, the applicable box must be

checked. If yes, the proposer will be requested to select the applicable previous award number.

Some NSF program solicitations require submission of both a preliminary and full proposal as part of the

proposal process. In such cases, the following instructions apply:

(i) During the preliminary proposal stage, the proposing organization should identify the submission as a

preliminary proposal by checking the block entitled, “Preliminary Proposal” on the Cover Sheet;

(ii) During the full proposal submission stage, the proposing organization should identify in the block entitled,

“Show Related Preliminary Proposal Number”, the related preliminary proposal number assigned by NSF.

Grant Proposal Guide II-8 NSF 15-1

(e) Other Federal Agencies

If the proposal is being submitted for consideration by another Federal agency, the abbreviated name(s) of the

Federal agency(ies) must be identified in the spaces provided.

(f) Awardee Organization Information

The awardee organization name, address, DUNS number and Employer Identification Number/Taxpayer

Identification Number are derived from the profile information provided by the organization or pulled by NSF from

the SAM database and are not entered when preparing the Cover Sheet via FastLane.

Profit-making organizations must identify their status by checking the appropriate boxes on the Cover Sheet,

using the following guidelines:

• A small business must be organized for profit, independently owned and operated (not a subsidiary of or

controlled by another firm), have no more than 500 employees, and not be dominant in its field.

• A minority business must be: (i) at least 51 percent owned by one or more minority or disadvantaged

individuals or, in the case of a publicly owned business, have at least 51 percent of the voting stock

owned by one or more minority or disadvantaged individuals; and (ii) one whose management and daily

business operations are controlled by one or more such individuals.

• A woman-owned business must be at least 51 percent owned by a woman or women, who also control

and operate it. "Control" in this context means exercising the power to make policy decisions. "Operate"

in this context means being actively involved in the day-to-day management.

(g) Project/Performance Site Primary Location

If the project will be performed at the awardee organization, check the designated box. If the project, however,

will be performed at a location other than the awardee, provide the following information (where applicable):

• Organization Name (identify the organization name of the primary site where the work will be performed,

if different than the awardee);

• Street;

• City;

• State;

• Country; and

• 9-digit Zip Code.

For projects that support research infrastructure and tools, such as vessels, facilities, and telescopes, the

project/performance site should correspond to the physical location of the research asset. For research assets

or projects that are geographically distributed, the proposer should report information for the primary site, as

defined by the proposer. For example, proposals for the operations and maintenance of research vessels may

list the project/performance site as the vessel’s home port.

(h) Other Information

Should any of the following items on the Cover Sheet apply to a proposal, the applicable box(es) must be

checked.

• Beginning Investigator (See GPG I.G.2)

• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (See GPG II.C.1.e)

• Proprietary or Privileged Information (See GPG I.D.3 & II.C.1.d)

• Historic Places (See GPG II.C.2.j)

Grant Proposal Guide II-9 NSF 15-1

• Vertebrate Animals18 (See GPG II.D.7)

• Human Subjects19 (See GPG II.D.8)

• International Activities Country Name(s) (See GPG II.C.2.j) -- A maximum of five countries may be listed

on the Cover Sheet

b. Project Summary

Each proposal must contain a summary of the proposed project not more than one page in length. The Project

Summary 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.

The overview includes a description of the activity that would result if the proposal were funded and a statement

of objectives and methods to be employed. The statement on intellectual merit should describe the potential of

the proposed activity to advance knowledge. The statement on broader impacts should describe the potential of

the proposed activity to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The Project Summary should be written in the third person, informative to other persons working in the same or

related fields, and, insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader. It

should not be an abstract of the proposal.

If the Project Summary contains special characters it may be uploaded as a Supplementary Document. Project

Summaries submitted as a PDF must be formatted with separate headings for the overview, statement on the

intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity. Failure

to include these headings may result in the proposal being returned without review.

Additional instructions for preparation of the Project Summary are available in FastLane.

c. Table of Contents

A Table of Contents is automatically generated for the proposal by FastLane. The proposer cannot edit this

form.

d. Project Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support)

(i) Content

The Project Description should provide a clear statement of the work to be undertaken and must include:

objectives for the period of the proposed work and expected significance; relation to longer-term goals of the PI's

project; and relation to the present state of knowledge in the field, to work in progress by the PI under other

support and to work in progress elsewhere.

The Project Description should outline the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be

undertaken, and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures.

Proposers should address what they 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. The project activities may be

based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well

justified. These issues apply to both the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may

make broader contributions.

The Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a section labeled “Broader

Impacts of the Proposed Work”. This section should provide a discussion of the broader impacts of 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

18 If the proposal includes use of Vertebrate Animals, supplemental information is required. See GPG Chapter II.D.7 for

additional information.

19 If the proposal includes use of Human Subjects, supplemental information is required. See GPG Chapter II.D.8 for

additional information.

Grant Proposal Guide II-10 NSF 15-1

the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to the

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.

Plans for data management and sharing of the products of research, including preservation, documentation, and

sharing of data, samples, physical collections, curriculum materials and other related research and education

products should be described in the Special Information and Supplementary Documentation section of the

proposal (see GPG Chapter II.C.2.j. for additional instructions for preparation of this section).

(ii) Page Limitations and Inclusion of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) within the Project

Description

Brevity will assist reviewers and Foundation staff in dealing effectively with proposals. Therefore, the Project

Description (including Results from Prior NSF Support, which is limited to five pages) may not exceed 15

pages. Visual materials, including charts, graphs, maps, photographs and other pictorial presentations are

included in the 15-page limitation. PIs are cautioned that the Project Description must be self-contained and that

URLs that provide information related to the proposal should not be used because 1) the information could

circumvent page limitations, 2) the reviewers are under no obligation to view the sites, and 3) the sites could be

altered or abolished between the time of submission and the time of review.

Conformance to the 15-page limitation will be strictly enforced and may not be exceeded unless a deviation has

been specifically authorized. (GPG Chapter II.A contains information on deviations.)

(iii) Results from Prior NSF Support

If any PI or co-PI identified on the project has received NSF funding (including any current funding) in the past

five years, information on the award(s) is required, irrespective of whether the support was directly related to the

proposal or not. In cases where the PI or co-PI has received more than one award (excluding amendments),

they need only report on the one award most closely related to the proposal. Funding includes not just salary

support, but any funding awarded by NSF. The following information must be provided:

(a) the NSF award number, amount and period of support;

(b) the title of the project;

The results must be separately described under two distinct headings, Intellectual Merit and Broader

Impacts;

(d) a listing of the publications resulting from the NSF award (a complete bibliographic citation for each

publication must be provided either in this section or in the References Cited section of the proposal); if

none, state “No publications were produced under this award.”

(e) evidence of research products and their availability, including, but not limited to: data, publications,

samples, physical collections, software, and models, as described in any Data Management Plan; and

(f) if the proposal is for renewed support, a description of the relation of the completed work to the proposed

work.

Reviewers will be asked to comment on the quality of the prior work described in this section of the proposal.

Please note that the proposal may contain up to five pages to describe the results. Results may be summarized

in fewer than five pages, which would give the balance of the 15 pages for the Project Description.

Grant Proposal Guide II-11 NSF 15-1

(iv) Unfunded Collaborations

Any substantial collaboration with individuals not included in the budget should be described in the Facilities,

Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal (see GPG Chapter II.C.2.i) and documented in a letter

of collaboration from each collaborator. Such letters should be provided in the supplementary documentation

section of the FastLane Proposal Preparation Module. Collaborative activities that are identified in the budget

should follow the instructions in GPG Chapter II.D.

(v) Group Proposals

NSF encourages submission of proposals by groups of investigators; often these are submitted to carry out

interdisciplinary projects. Unless stipulated in a specific program solicitation, however, such proposals will be

subject to the 15-page Project Description limitation established in Section (ii) above. PIs who wish to exceed

the established page limitations for the Project Description must request and receive a deviation in advance of

proposal submission. (GPG Chapter II.A contains information on deviations.)

(vi) Proposals for Renewed Support

See GPG Chapter V for guidance on preparation of renewal proposals.

e. References Cited

Reference information is required. Each reference must include the names of all authors (in the same sequence

in which they appear in the publication), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers,

and year of publication. If the document is available electronically, the website address also should be

identified.20 Proposers must be especially careful to follow accepted scholarly practices in providing citations for

source materials relied upon when preparing any section of the proposal. While there is no established page

limitation for the references, this section must include bibliographic citations only and must not be used to provide

parenthetical information outside of the 15-page Project Description.

f. Biographical Sketch(es)

(i) Senior Personnel

A biographical sketch (limited to two pages) is required for each individual identified as senior personnel. (See

GPG Exhibit II-7 for the definitions of Senior Personnel.) The following information must be provided in the order

and format specified below. Inclusion of additional information beyond that specified below may result in the

proposal being returned without review.

Do not submit any personal information in the biographical sketch. This includes items such as: home

address; home telephone, fax, or cell phone numbers; home e-mail address; drivers’ license numbers; marital

status; personal hobbies; and the like. Such personal information is not appropriate for the biographical sketch

and is not relevant to the merits of the proposal. NSF is not responsible or in any way liable for the release of

such material. (See also GPG Chapter III.H).

In FastLane, if biographical sketches for all senior personnel are uploaded in a single PDF file associated

with the PI, insert text or upload a document that states, “Not Applicable” for any co-PI or Senior Person.

(a) Professional Preparation

A list of the individual’s undergraduate and graduate education and postdoctoral training (including location) as

indicated below:

Undergraduate Institution(s) Location Major Degree & Year

20If the proposer has a website address readily available, that information should be included in the citation, as stated above.

It is not NSF's intent, however, to place an undue burden on proposers to search for the URL of every referenced publication.

Therefore, inclusion of a website address is optional. A proposal that includes reference citation(s) that do not specify a URL

address is not considered to be in violation of NSF proposal preparation guidelines and the proposal will still be reviewed.

Grant Proposal Guide II-12 NSF 15-1

Graduate Institution(s) Location Major Degree & Year

Postdoctoral Institution(s) Location Area Inclusive Dates (years)

(b) Appointments

A list, in reverse chronological order, of all the individual’s academic/professional appointments beginning with

the current appointment.

A list of: (i) up to five products most closely related to the proposed project; and (ii) up to five other significant

products, whether or not related to the proposed project. Acceptable products must be citable and accessible

including but not limited to publications, data sets, software, patents, and copyrights. Unacceptable products are

unpublished documents not yet submitted for publication, invited lectures, and additional lists of products. Only

the list of ten will be used in the review of the proposal.

Each product must include full citation information including (where applicable and practicable) names of all

authors, date of publication or release, title, title of enclosing work such as journal or book, volume, issue, pages,

website and URL or other Persistent Identifier.

If only publications are included, the heading “Publications” may be used for this section of the Biographical

Sketch.

(d) Synergistic Activities

A list of up to five examples that demonstrate the broader impact of the individual’s professional and scholarly

activities that focuses on the integration and transfer of knowledge as well as its creation. Examples could

include, among others: innovations in teaching and training (e.g., development of curricular materials and

pedagogical methods); contributions to the science of learning; development and/or refinement of research tools;

computation methodologies, and algorithms for problem-solving; development of databases to support research

and education; broadening the participation of groups underrepresented in STEM; and service to the scientific

and engineering community outside of the individual’s immediate organization.

(e) Collaborators & Other Affiliations

• Collaborators and Co-Editors. A list of all persons in alphabetical order (including their current

organizational affiliations) who are currently, or who have been collaborators or co-authors with the

individual on a project, book, article, report, abstract or paper during the 48 months preceding the

submission of the proposal. Also include those individuals who are currently or have been co-editors of

a journal, compendium, or conference proceedings during the 24 months preceding the submission of

the proposal. The total number of collaborators and co-editors also must be identified. If there are no

collaborators or co-editors to report, this should be so indicated.

• Graduate Advisors and Postdoctoral Sponsors. A list of the names of the individual’s own graduate

advisor(s) and principal postdoctoral sponsor(s), and their current organizational affiliations. The total

number of graduate advisors and postdoctoral sponsors also must be identified.

• Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor. A list of all persons (including their

organizational affiliations), with whom the individual has had an association as thesis advisor, or with

whom the individual has had an association within the last five years as a postgraduate-scholar sponsor.

The total number of graduate students advised and postdoctoral scholars sponsored also must be

identified.

The information in section (e) above of the biographical sketch is used to help identify potential conflicts or bias in

the selection of reviewers. See GPG Exhibit II-2 for additional information on potential reviewer conflicts.

Grant Proposal Guide II-13 NSF 15-1

(ii) Other Personnel

For the personnel categories listed below, the proposal also may include information on exceptional qualifications

that merit consideration in the evaluation of the proposal. Such information should be clearly identified as “Other

Personnel” biographical information and uploaded along with the Biosketches for Senior Personnel in the

Biosketches section of the proposal.

(a) Postdoctoral associates

(b) Other professionals

(iii) Equipment Proposals

For equipment proposals, the following must be provided for each auxiliary user:

(a) Short biographical sketch; and

(b) List of up to five publications most closely related to the proposed acquisition.

g. Budget and Budget Justification

Each proposal must contain a budget for each year of support requested. The budget justification must be no

more than three pages per proposal. The amounts for each budget line item requested must be documented

and justified in the budget justification as specified below. For proposals that contain a subaward(s), each

subaward must include a separate budget justification of no more than three pages.

The proposal may request funds under any of the categories listed so long as the item and amount are

considered necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under 2 CFR § 200, Subpart E, NSF policy, and/or

the program solicitation. For-profit entities are subject to the cost principles contained in the Federal Acquisition

Regulation, Part 31. Amounts and expenses budgeted also must be consistent with the proposing organization's

policies and procedures and cost accounting practices used in accumulating and reporting costs.

(i) Salaries and Wages (Lines A and B on the Proposal Budget)

(a) Senior Personnel Salaries & Wages Policy

NSF regards research as one of the normal functions of faculty members at institutions of higher education.

Compensation for time normally spent on research within the term of appointment is deemed to be included

within the faculty member’s regular organizational salary.

As a general policy, NSF limits the salary compensation requested in the proposal budget for senior personnel to

no more than two months of their regular salary in any one year. This limit includes salary compensation

received from all NSF-funded grants. This effort must be documented in accordance with 2 CFR § 200,

Subpart E. If anticipated, any compensation for such personnel in excess of two months must be disclosed in

the proposal budget, justified in the budget justification, and must be specifically approved by NSF in the award

notice budget.21 Under normal rebudgeting authority, as described in AAG Chapters II and V, an awardee can

internally approve an increase or decrease in person months devoted to the project after an award is made, even

if doing so results in salary support for senior personnel exceeding the two month salary policy. No prior approval

from NSF is necessary as long as that change would not cause the objective or scope of the project to change.

NSF prior approval is necessary if the objective or scope of the project changes.

These same general principles apply to other types of non-academic organizations.

21NSF awardees remain subject to the provisions of OMB M-01-06, “Clarification of OMB A-21 Treatment of Voluntary

Uncommitted Cost Sharing and Tuition Remission Costs,” regarding requirements for committing and tracking “some level” of

faculty (or senior researcher) effort as part of the organized research base.

Grant Proposal Guide II-14 NSF 15-1

(b) Administrative and Clerical Salaries & Wages Policy

The salaries of administrative and clerical staff should normally be treated as indirect (F&A) costs. Inclusion of

such costs on a proposal budget may be appropriate only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) Administrative or clerical services are integral to a project or activity;

(2) Individuals involved can be specifically identified with the project or activity;

(3) Such costs are explicitly included in the approved budget or have the prior written approval of the

cognizant NSF Grants Officer; and

(4) The costs are not also recovered as indirect costs.

The names of the PI(s), faculty, and other senior personnel and the estimated number of full-time-equivalent

person-months for which NSF funding is requested, and the total amount of salaries requested per year, must be

listed. For consistency with the NSF cost sharing policy, if person months will be requested for senior personnel,

a corresponding salary amount must be entered on the budget. If no person months and no salary are being

requested for senior personnel, they should be removed from Section A of the budget. Their name(s) will remain

on the Cover Sheet and the individual(s) role on the project should be described in the Facilities, Equipment and

other Resources section of the proposal.

For postdoctoral associates and other professionals, the total number of persons for each position must be listed,

with the number of full-time-equivalent person-months and total amount of salaries requested per year. For

graduate and undergraduate students, secretarial, clerical, technical, etc., whose time will be charged directly to

the project, only the total number of persons and total amount of salaries requested per year in each category is

required. Salaries requested must be consistent with the organization’s regular practices. The budget

justification should detail the rates of pay by individual for senior personnel, postdoctoral associates, and other

professionals.

The budget may request funds for support of graduate or undergraduate research assistants to help carry out the

proposed research. Compensation classified as salary payments must be requested in the salaries and wages

category.

(d) Confidential Budgetary Information

The proposing organization may request that salary data on senior personnel not be released to persons outside

the Government during the review process. In such cases, the item for senior personnel salaries in the proposal

may appear as a single figure and the person-months represented by that amount omitted. If this option is

exercised, senior personnel salaries and person-months must be itemized in a separate statement, and

forwarded to NSF in accordance with the instructions specified in GPG Chapter I.D.3. This statement must

include all of the information requested on the proposal budget for each person involved. NSF will not forward

the detailed information to reviewers and will hold it privileged to the extent permitted by law. The information on

senior personnel salaries will be used as the basis for determining the salary amounts shown in the grant budget.

The box for "Proprietary or Privileged Information" must be checked on the Cover Sheet when the proposal

contains confidential budgetary information.22

(ii) Fringe Benefits (Line C on the Proposal Budget)

If the proposer’s usual accounting practices provide that its contributions to employee benefits (leave, employee

insurance, social security, retirement, other payroll-related taxes, etc.) be treated as direct costs, NSF grant

funds may be requested to fund fringe benefits as a direct cost. These are typically determined by application of

a calculated fringe benefit rate for a particular class of employee (full time or part-time) applied to the salaries

and wages requested. They also may be paid based on actual costs for individual employees, if that institutional

policy has been approved by the cognizant federal agency. See 2 CFR § 200.431 for the definition and

allowability of inclusion of fringe benefits on a proposal budget.

22Detailed instructions for submission of confidential budgetary information are available on the FastLane website.

Grant Proposal Guide II-15 NSF 15-1

(iii) Equipment (Line D on the Proposal Budget)

Equipment is defined as tangible personal property (including information technology systems) having a useful

life of more than one year and a per-unit acquisition cost which equals or exceeds the lesser of the capitalization

level established by the proposer for financial statement purposes, or $5,000. It is important to note that the

acquisition cost of equipment includes modifications, attachments, and accessories necessary to make the

property usable for the purpose for which it was purchased. Items of needed equipment must be adequately

justified, listed individually by description and estimated cost.

Allowable items ordinarily will be limited to research equipment and apparatus not already available for the

conduct of the work. General purpose equipment such as office equipment and furnishings, and information

technology equipment and systems are typically not eligible for direct cost support. Special purpose or scientific

use computers or associated hardware and software, however, may be requested as items of equipment when

necessary to accomplish the project objectives and not otherwise reasonably available. Any request to support

such items must be clearly disclosed in the proposal budget, justified in the budget justification, and be included

in the NSF award budget.

(iv) Travel (Line E on the Proposal Budget)

(a) General

Travel and its relation to the proposed activities must be specified, itemized and justified by destination and cost.

Funds may be requested for field work, attendance at meetings and conferences, and other travel associated

with the proposed work, including subsistence. In order to qualify for support, however, attendance at meetings

or conferences must be necessary to accomplish proposal objectives, or disseminate its results. Travel support

for dependents of key project personnel may be requested only when the travel is for a duration of six months or

more either by inclusion in the approved budget or with the prior written approval of the cognizant NSF Grants

Officer. Temporary dependent care costs above and beyond regular dependent care that directly result from

travel to conferences are allowable costs provided that the conditions established in 2 CFR § 200.474 are met.

Allowance for air travel normally will not exceed the cost of round-trip, economy airfares. Persons traveling

under NSF grants must travel by U.S.-Flag Air carriers, if available.

(b) Domestic Travel

Domestic travel includes travel within and between the U.S., its territories and possessions.23

Travel outside the areas specified above is considered foreign travel. The proposal must include relevant

information, including countries to be visited (also enter names of countries on the proposal budget), dates of

visit, if known.

(v) Participant Support (Line F on the Proposal Budget)

This budget category refers to costs for items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances,

and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with NSF-

sponsored conferences or training projects. Any additional categories of participant support costs other than

those described in 2 CFR § 200.75 (such as incentives, gifts, souvenirs, t-shirts and memorabilia), must be

justified in the budget justification, and such costs will be closely scrutinized by NSF. (See also GPG Chapter

II.D.9) For some educational projects conducted at local school districts, however, the participants being trained

are employees. In such cases, the costs must be classified as participant support if payment is made through a

23 According to the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. territories and possessions are as follows: Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin

Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway Island, Wake Island, Palmyra

Island, Howland Island, Johnston Island, Baker Island, Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, and other U.S. islands, cays, and reefs

that are not part of any of the fifty states. See also: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Persons-

Employed-In-U.S.-Possessions.

Grant Proposal Guide II-16 NSF 15-1

stipend or training allowance method. The school district must have an accounting mechanism in place (i.e.,

sub-account code) to differentiate between regular salary and stipend payments.

The number of participants to be supported must be entered in the parentheses on the proposal budget. These

costs also must be justified in the budget justification section of the proposal. Indirect costs (F&A) are not

allowed on participant support costs. Participant support costs must be accounted for separately should an

award be made.

Funds provided for participant support may not be used for other categories of expense without specific prior

NSF written approval. Such requests must be submitted electronically via use of NSF’s electronic systems.

(vi) Other Direct Costs (Lines G1 through G6 on the Proposal Budget)

Any costs proposed to an NSF grant must be allowable, reasonable and directly allocable to the supported

activity. The budget must identify and itemize other anticipated direct costs not included under the headings

above, including materials and supplies, publication costs, computer services and consultant services. Examples

include aircraft rental, space rental at research establishments away from the grantee organization, minor

building alterations, payments to human subjects, and service charges. Reference books and periodicals may be

charged to the grant only if they are specifically allocable to the project being supported by NSF.

(a) Materials and Supplies (including Costs of Computing Devices) (Line G1 on the Proposal Budget)

The proposal budget justification should indicate the general types of expendable materials and supplies

required. Supplies are defined as all tangible personal property other than those described in paragraph (d)(iii)

above. A computing device is considered a supply if the acquisition cost is less than the lesser of the

capitalization level established by the proposer or $5,000, regardless of the length of its useful life. In the specific

case of computing devices, charging as a direct cost is allowable for devices that are essential and allocable, but

not solely dedicated, to the performance of the NSF award. Cost estimates must be included for items that

represent a substantial amount of the proposed line item cost.

(b) Publication/Documentation/Dissemination (Line G2 on the Proposal Budget)

The proposal budget may request funds for the costs of documenting, preparing, publishing or otherwise making

available to others the findings and products of the work conducted under the grant. This generally includes the

following types of activities: reports, reprints, page charges or other journal costs (except costs for prior or early

publication); necessary illustrations; cleanup, documentation, storage and indexing of data and databases;

development, documentation and debugging of software; and storage, preservation, documentation, indexing,

etc., of physical specimens, collections or fabricated items.

Budget)

The proposal budget may request costs for professional and consultant services. Professional and consultant

services are services rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special skill,

and who are not officers or employees of the proposing organization. Costs of professional and consultant

services are allowable when reasonable in relation to the services rendered and when not contingent upon

recovery of costs from the Federal government. Anticipated services must be justified and information furnished

on each individual’s expertise, primary organizational affiliation, normal daily compensation rate, and number of

days of expected service. Consultants’ travel costs, including subsistence, may be included. If requested, the

proposer must be able to justify that the proposed rate of pay is reasonable. Additional information on the

allowability of consultant or professional service costs is available in 2 CFR § 200.459. In addition to other

provisions required by the proposing organization, all contracts made under the NSF award must contain the

applicable provisions identified in 2 CFR § 200 Appendix II.

(d) Computer Services (Line G4 on the Proposal Budget)

The cost of computer services, including computer-based retrieval of scientific, technical and educational

information, may be requested only where it is institutional policy to charge such costs as direct charges. A

Grant Proposal Guide II-17 NSF 15-1

justification based on the established computer service rates at the proposing organization must be included.

The proposal budget also may request costs for leasing of computer equipment. As noted in GPG Chapter

II.C.2.g(iii), general purpose (such as word processing, spreadsheets, communication) computer equipment

should not be requested. Note: See paragraph (a) above for guidance on acquisition of computing devices.

(e) Subawards24 (Line G5 on the Proposal Budget)

Except for the purchase of materials and supplies, equipment or general support services allowable under the

grant, no portion of the proposed activity may be subawarded, transferred, or contracted out to another

organization without written prior NSF authorization. Such authorization must be provided either through

inclusion of the subaward(s) on an NSF award budget or by receiving written prior approval from the cognizant

NSF Grants Officer.

If known at the time of proposal submission, the intent to enter into such arrangements must be disclosed in the

proposal. A separate budget and a budget justification of no more than three pages, must be provided for each

subrecipient, if already identified, along with a description of the work to be performed.

All proposing organizations are required to make a case-by-case determination regarding the role of a

subrecipient versus contractor for each agreement it makes. 2 CFR § 200.330 provides characteristics of each

type of arrangement to assist proposing organizations in making that determination. However, inclusion of a

subaward or contract in the proposal budget or submission of a request after issuance of an NSF award to add a

subaward or contract will document the organizational determination required.

It is NSF’s expectation that, consistent with 2 CFR § 200.414, NSF awardees will use the domestic subrecipient’s

applicable U.S. federally negotiated indirect cost rate(s). If no such rate exists, the NSF awardee may either

negotiate a rate or use a de minimus indirect cost rate recovery of 10% of modified total direct costs.

It is also NSF’s expectation that NSF awardees will use the foreign subrecipient’s applicable U.S. federally

negotiated indirect cost rate(s). However, foreign subrecipients that do not have a U.S. federally negotiated

indirect cost rate are entitled to a de minimus indirect cost rate recovery of 10% of modified total direct costs.

(f) Other (Line G6 on the Proposal Budget)

Any other direct costs not specified in Lines G1 through G5 must be identified on Line G6. Such costs must be

itemized and detailed in the budget justification.

Visa Costs

One particular category of “other” direct costs that NSF receives a significant number of inquiries about concerns

the allowability of visa costs on NSF budgets. Guidance regarding inclusion of visa costs in a proposal budget is

as follows:

Short-term, travel visa costs (as opposed to longer-term, immigration visas) are generally allowable expenses

that may be proposed as a direct cost on an NSF proposal. Since short-term visas are issued for a specific

period and purpose, they can be clearly identified as directly connected to work performed on an NSF-related

project. For these costs to be included on an NSF budget, they must:

• be critical and necessary for the conduct of the project;

• be allowable under 2 CFR § 200, Subpart E;

• be consistent with the organization’s cost accounting practices and organizational policy; and

• meet the definition of “direct cost” as described in 2 CFR § 200, Subpart E.

24A subaward may be provided through any form of legal agreement, including an agreement that the proposing organization

considers a contract. The substance of the relationship is more important than the form of the agreement.

Grant Proposal Guide II-18 NSF 15-1

(vii) Total Direct Costs (Line H on the Proposal Budget)

The total amount of direct costs requested in the budget, to include Lines A through G, must be entered on Line

(viii) Indirect Costs (also known as Facilities and Administrative Costs (F&A) for Colleges and

Universities) (Line I on the Proposal Budget)

Except where specifically identified in an NSF program solicitation, the applicable U.S. federally negotiated

indirect cost rate(s) must be used in computing indirect costs (F&A) for a proposal. The amount for indirect costs

should be calculated by applying the current negotiated indirect cost rate(s) to the approved base(s). Indirect

cost recovery for colleges, universities, and other organizations of higher education are additionally restricted by

2 CFR § 200, Appendix III, paragraph C.7. which specifies Federal agencies are required to use the negotiated

F&A rate that is in effect at the time of the initial award throughout the life of the sponsored agreement.

Additional information on the charging of indirect costs to an NSF award is available in AAG Chapter V.D.

Domestic proposing organizations that do not have a current negotiated rate agreement with a cognizant Federal

agency, and who are requesting more than a de minimus 10% recovery of modified total direct costs should

prepare an indirect cost proposal based on expenditures for its most recently ended fiscal year. Based on the

information provided in the indirect cost proposal, NSF may negotiate an award-specific rate to be used only on

the award currently being considered for funding. No supporting documentation is required for proposed rates of

10% or less of modified total direct costs. The contents and financial data included in indirect cost proposals

vary according to the make-up of the proposing organization. Instructions for preparing an indirect cost rate

proposal can be found at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/caar/docs/idcsubmissions.pdf. NSF formally negotiates

indirect cost rates for the organizations for which NSF has rate cognizance. NSF does not negotiate rates for

organizations that are not direct recipients of NSF funding (e.g., subrecipients). The prime recipient is

responsible for ensuring that proposed subrecipient costs, including indirect costs, are reasonable and

appropriate.

Foreign organizations that do not have a current U.S. federally negotiated indirect cost rate(s) are limited to a de

minimus indirect cost rate recovery of 10% of modified total direct costs. Foreign grantees that have a U.S.

federally negotiated indirect cost rate(s) may recover indirect costs at the current negotiated rate.

(ix) Total Direct and Indirect Costs (F&A) (Line J on the Proposal Budget)

The total amount of direct and indirect costs (F&A) (sum of Lines H and I) must be entered on Line J.

(x) Amount of This Request (Line L on the Proposal Budget)

The total amount of funds requested by the proposer should be the same as the amount entered on Line J.

(xi) Cost Sharing (Line M on the Proposal Budget)

The National Science Board issued a report entitled “Investing in the Future: NSF Cost Sharing Policies for a

Robust Federal Research Enterprise” (NSB 09-20, August 3, 2009), which contained eight recommendations for

NSF regarding cost sharing. In implementation of the Board’s recommendation, NSF’s revised guidance25 is as

follows:

Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited and Line M on the proposal budget will not be

available for use by the proposer.26 In order for NSF, and its reviewers, to assess the scope of a proposed

project, all organizational resources necessary for, and available to, a project must be described in the Facilities,

Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal (see GPG Chapter II.C.2.i for further information). NSF

25 See NSF’s Revised Cost Sharing Policy Statement for the Foundation’s overarching policies on cost sharing.

26 While not required by NSF, awardee organizations may, at their own discretion, continue to contribute voluntary

uncommitted cost sharing to NSF-sponsored projects. These resources are not auditable by NSF and should not be included

in the proposal budget or budget justification.

Grant Proposal Guide II-19 NSF 15-1

Program Officers are not authorized to impose or encourage cost sharing unless such requirements are explicitly

included in the program solicitation.

Mandatory Cost Sharing

Mandatory cost sharing will only be required for NSF programs when explicitly authorized by the NSF Director,

the National Science Board, or legislation. A complete listing of NSF programs that require cost sharing is

available on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/. In those rare instances, cost sharing

requirements will be clearly identified in the solicitation and must be included on Line M of the proposed budget.

For purposes of budget preparation, the cumulative cost sharing amount must be entered on Line M of the first

year’s budget. Should an award be made, the organization’s cost sharing commitment, as specified on the first

year’s approved budget, must be met prior to award expiration.

Such cost sharing will be an eligibility, rather than a review criterion. Proposers are advised not to exceed the

mandatory cost sharing level or amount specified in the solicitation.27

When mandatory cost sharing is included on Line M, and accepted by the Foundation, the commitment of funds

becomes legally binding and is subject to audit. When applicable, the estimated value of any in-kind

contributions also should be included on Line M. An explanation of the source, nature, amount and availability of

any proposed cost sharing must be provided in the budget justification28. It should be noted that contributions

derived from other Federal funds or counted as cost sharing toward projects of another Federal agency must not

be counted towards meeting the specific cost sharing requirements of the NSF award.

Failure to provide the level of cost sharing required by the NSF solicitation and reflected in the NSF award

budget may result in termination of the NSF award, disallowance of award costs and/or refund of award funds to

NSF by the awardee.

(xii) Allowable and Unallowable Costs

2 CFR § 200, Subpart E provides comprehensive information regarding costs allowable under Federal awards.

The following categories of unallowable costs are highlighted because of their sensitivity:

(a) Entertainment

Costs of entertainment, amusement, diversion and social activities, and any costs directly associated with such

activities (such as tickets to shows or sporting events, meals, lodging, rentals, transportation and gratuities) are

unallowable. Travel, meal and hotel expenses of grantee employees who are not on travel status are

unallowable. Costs of employees on travel status are limited to those specifically authorized by 2 CFR §

200.474.

(b) Meals and Coffee Breaks

No funds may be requested for meals or coffee breaks for intramural meetings of an organization or any of its

components, including, but not limited to, laboratories, departments and centers. See however, 2 CFR 200.432,

for additional information on the charging of certain types of costs generally associated with conferences

supported by NSF.

No NSF funds may be spent on alcoholic beverages.

27 For further information on procedures for inclusion of programmatic cost sharing in an NSF solicitation, see

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/csdocs/principles.pdf.

28 2 CFR § 200.306 describes criteria and procedures for the allowability of cash and in-kind contributions in satisfying cost

sharing and matching requirements.

Grant Proposal Guide II-20 NSF 15-1

h. Current and Pending Support

This section of the proposal calls for required information on all current and pending support for ongoing projects

and proposals, including this project, and any subsequent funding in the case of continuing grants. All current

project support from whatever source (e.g., Federal, State, local or foreign government agencies, public or

private foundations, industrial or other commercial organizations) must be listed. The proposed project and all

other projects or activities requiring a portion of time of the PI and other senior personnel must be included, even

if they receive no salary support from the project(s). The total award amount for the entire award period covered

(including indirect costs) must be shown as well as the number of person-months per year to be devoted to the

project, regardless of source of support. Similar information must be provided for all proposals already submitted

or submitted concurrently to other possible sponsors, including NSF. Concurrent submission of a proposal to

other organizations will not prejudice its review by NSF. The Biological Sciences Directorate exception to this

policy is delineated in GPG Chapter I.G.2.

If the project now being submitted has been funded previously by a source other than NSF, the information

requested in the paragraph above must be furnished for the last period of funding.

In FastLane, if Current and Pending Support information for all senior personnel is uploaded in a single

PDF file associated with the PI, insert text or upload a document that states, “Not Applicable” for any co-

PI or Senior Person.

i. Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

This section of the proposal is used to assess the adequacy of the resources available to perform the effort

proposed to satisfy both the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts review criteria. Proposers should describe

only those resources that are directly applicable. Proposers should include an aggregated description of the

internal and external resources (both physical and personnel) that the organization and its collaborators will

provide to the project, should it be funded. Such information must be provided in this section, in lieu of other

parts of the proposal (e.g., budget justification, project description). The description should be narrative in nature

and must not include any quantifiable financial information. Reviewers will evaluate the information during the

merit review process and the cognizant NSF Program Officer will review it for programmatic and technical

sufficiency.

Although these resources are not considered cost sharing as defined in 2 CFR § 200.306, the Foundation does

expect that the resources identified in the Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources section will be provided, or

made available, should the proposal be funded. AAG Chapter II.B.1 specifies procedures for use by the awardee

when there are postaward changes to objective, scope or methodology.

j. Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

Except as specified below, special information and supplementary documentation must be included as part of the

Project Description (or part of the budget justification), if it is relevant to determining the quality of the proposed

work. Information submitted in the following areas is not considered part of the 15-page Project Description

limitation. This Special Information and Supplementary Documentation section also is not considered an

appendix. Specific guidance on the need for additional documentation may be obtained from the organization’s

Sponsored Projects Office or in the references cited below.

• Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan. Each proposal29 that requests funding to support

postdoctoral researchers30 must include, as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring

activities that will be provided for such individuals. If a Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan is

required, FastLane will not permit submission of a proposal if the Plan is missing. In no more than one

29 For purposes of meeting the mentoring requirement, simultaneously submitted collaborative proposals, and collaborative

proposals that include subawards, constitute a single unified project. Therefore, only one mentoring plan may be submitted

for the entire project.

30 In situations where a postdoctoral researcher is listed in Section A of the NSF Budget, and is functioning in a Senior

Personnel capacity (i.e., responsible for the scientific or technical direction of the project), a mentoring plan is not required.

Grant Proposal Guide II-21 NSF 15-1

page, the mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral

researchers supported by the project, irrespective of whether they reside at the submitting organization,

any subrecipient organization, or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted

collaborative project. Proposers are advised that the mentoring plan must not be used to circumvent the

15-page Project Description limitation. See GPG Chapter II.D.5 for additional information on

collaborative proposals. Mentoring activities provided to postdoctoral researchers supported on the

project will be evaluated under the Broader Impacts review criterion.

Examples of mentoring activities include, but are not limited to: career counseling; training in preparation

of grant proposals, publications and presentations; guidance on ways to improve teaching and mentoring

skills; guidance on how to effectively collaborate with researchers from diverse backgrounds and

disciplinary areas; and training in responsible professional practices.

• Plans for data management and sharing of the products of research. Proposals must include a

supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled “Data Management Plan”. This

supplementary document should describe how the proposal will conform to NSF policy on the

dissemination and sharing of research results (see AAG Chapter VI.D.4), and may include:

1. the types of data, samples, physical collections, software, curriculum materials, and other

materials to be produced in the course of the project;

2. the standards to be used for data and metadata format and content (where existing standards

are absent or deemed inadequate, this should be documented along with any proposed

solutions or remedies);

3. policies for access and sharing including provisions for appropriate protection of privacy,

confidentiality, security, intellectual property, or other rights or requirements;

4. policies and provisions for re-use, re-distribution, and the production of derivatives; and

5. plans for archiving data, samples, and other research products, and for preservation of access to

them.

Data management requirements and plans specific to the Directorate, Office, Division, Program, or other

NSF unit, relevant to a proposal are available at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp. If guidance

specific to the program is not available, then the requirements established in this section apply.

Simultaneously submitted collaborative proposals and proposals that include subawards are a single

unified project and should include only one supplemental combined Data Management Plan, regardless

of the number of non-lead collaborative proposals or subawards included. FastLane will not permit

submission of a proposal that is missing a Data Management Plan.

A valid Data Management Plan may include only the statement that no detailed plan is needed, as long

as the statement is accompanied by a clear justification. Proposers who feel that the plan cannot fit

within the limit of two pages may use part of the 15-page Project Description for additional data

management information. Proposers are advised that the Data Management Plan must not be used to

circumvent the 15-page Project Description limitation. The Data Management Plan will be reviewed as

an integral part of the proposal, considered under Intellectual Merit or Broader Impacts or both, as

appropriate for the scientific community of relevance.

• Rationale for performance of all or part of the project off-campus or away from organizational

headquarters.

• Documentation of collaborative arrangements of significance to the proposal through letters of

collaboration. (See GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.(iv).) Letters of collaboration should be limited to stating the

intent to collaborate and should not contain endorsements or evaluation of the proposed project. While

such letters of collaboration are allowable, unless required by a specific program solicitation, letters of

support should not be submitted as they are not a standard component of an NSF proposal. Letters of

Grant Proposal Guide II-22 NSF 15-1

support are typically from a key stakeholder such as an organization, collaborator or Congressional

Representative, and are used to convey a sense of enthusiasm for the project and/or to highlight the

qualifications of the PI or co-PI. Letters of support submitted in response to a program solicitation

requirement must be unique to the specific proposal submitted and cannot be altered without the

author’s explicit prior approval. NSF will return without review proposals that are not consistent with

these instructions.

• In order for NSF to comply with federal environmental statutes (including, but not limited to, the National

Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq.], the National Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C.

§ 470, et seq.], and the Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. §§ 1531, et seq.], the proposer may be

requested to submit supplemental post-proposal submission information to NSF in order that a

reasonable and accurate assessment of environmental impacts by NSF may be made.

• International Activities

1. International Research/Education/Training Activities. For each proposal that describes an

international activity, PIs should list the primary countries involved on the Cover Sheet. An

international activity is defined as research, training, and/or education carried out in cooperation

with foreign counterparts either overseas or in the U.S. (using virtual technologies).

2. International Conferences. Proposers also should enter on the Cover Sheet the

country/countries with which project participants will engage and/or travel to attend international

conferences.

3. Work in foreign countries. Some governments require nonresidents to obtain official approval to

carry out investigations within their borders and coastal waters under their jurisdiction. PIs are

responsible for obtaining the required authorizations and for advising NSF that they have been

obtained or requested. Advance coordination should minimize disruption of the research. (See

AAG Chapter VI.B.4.)

• Antarctic proposals to any NSF program require operational worksheets by the first Wednesday of June

in the year before any proposed fieldwork. See “proposals with fieldwork” in Chapter V.A, of the

Antarctic Research solicitation. Special budget considerations also apply. See also Chapter V.B of the

Antarctic Research solicitation.

• Research in a location designated, or eligible to be designated, a registered historic place. (See AAG

Chapter VI.K). Where applicable, the box for “Historic Places” must be checked on the Cover Sheet.

• Research involving field experiments with genetically engineered organisms. (See AAG Chapter VI.B.2)

• Documentation regarding research involving the use of human subjects, hazardous materials, vertebrate

animals, or endangered species. (See AAG Chapter VI.B and GPG Chapter II.D.7 and II.D.8).

• Special components in new proposals or in requests for supplements, such as Facilitation Awards for

Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED), Research Opportunity Awards (ROAs), Research

Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs) or Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUIs). (See GPG

Chapter II.D.4 for information on FASED, and for the other programs identified, consult the relevant

program solicitation.)

In addition, the supplementary documentation section should alert NSF officials to unusual circumstances that

require special handling, including, for example, proprietary or other privileged information in the proposal,

matters affecting individual privacy, required intergovernmental review under E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental

Review of Federal Programs) for activities that directly affect State or local governments, or possible national

security implications.

Grant Proposal Guide II-23 NSF 15-1

k. Appendices

All information necessary for the review of a proposal must be contained in Sections A through I of the proposal.

Appendices may not be included unless a deviation has been authorized. GPG Chapter II.A contains

further information.

D. Special Guidelines

1. Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID)

The RAPID funding mechanism is used for proposals having a severe urgency with regard to availability of, or

access to, data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or

anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events. PI(s) must contact the NSF program officer(s) whose

expertise is most germane to the proposal topic before submitting a RAPID proposal. This will facilitate

determining whether the proposed work is appropriate for RAPID funding.

• The Project Description is expected to be brief (two to five pages) and include clear statements as to why

the proposed research is of an urgent nature and why a RAPID award would be the most appropriate

mechanism for supporting the proposed work. Note this proposal preparation instruction deviates from

the standard proposal preparation instructions contained in this Guide; RAPID proposals must otherwise

be compliant with the GPG.

• The “RAPID” proposal type must be selected in the proposal preparation module in FastLane.

• Only internal merit review is required for RAPID proposals. Under rare circumstances, program officers

may elect to obtain external reviews to inform their decision. If external review is to be obtained, then the

PI will be informed in the interest of maintaining the transparency of the review and recommendation

process. The two standard NSB-approved merit review criteria will apply.

• Requests may be for up to $200K and of one year duration. The award size, however, will be consistent

with the project scope and of a size comparable to grants in similar areas.

• No-cost extensions and requests for supplemental funding will be processed in accordance with

standard NSF policies and procedures.

• Renewed funding of RAPID awards may be requested only through submission of a proposal that will be

subject to full external merit review. Such proposals would be designated as “RAPID renewals.”

2. EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER)

The EAGER funding mechanism may be used to support exploratory work in its early stages on untested, but

potentially transformative, research ideas or approaches. This work may be considered especially "high risk-high

payoff" in the sense that it, for example, involves radically different approaches, applies new expertise, or

engages novel disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspectives. These exploratory proposals also may be submitted

directly to an NSF program, but the EAGER mechanism should not be used for projects that are appropriate for

submission as “regular” (i.e., non-EAGER) NSF proposals. PI(s) must contact the NSF program officer(s) whose

expertise is most germane to the proposal topic prior to submission of an EAGER proposal. This will aid in

determining the appropriateness of the work for consideration under the EAGER mechanism; this suitability must

be assessed early in the process.

• The Project Description is expected to be brief (five to eight pages) and include clear statements as to

why this project is appropriate for EAGER funding, including why it does not “fit” into existing programs

and why it is a “good fit” for EAGER. Note this proposal preparation instruction deviates from the

standard proposal preparation instructions contained in this Guide; EAGER proposals must otherwise be

compliant with the GPG.

• The “EAGER” proposal type must be selected in the proposal preparation module in FastLane.

Grant Proposal Guide II-24 NSF 15-1

• Only internal merit review is required for EAGER proposals. Under rare circumstances, program officers

may elect to obtain external reviews to inform their decision. If external review is to be obtained, then the

PI will be informed in the interest of maintaining the transparency of the review and recommendation

process. The two standard NSB-approved merit review criteria will apply.

• Requests may be for up to $300K and of up to two years duration. The award size, however, will be

consistent with the project scope and of a size comparable to grants in similar areas.

• No-cost extensions and requests for supplemental funding will be processed in accordance with

standard NSF policies and procedures.

• Renewed funding of EAGER awards may be requested only through submission of a proposal that will

be subject to full external merit review. Such proposals would be designated as “EAGER renewals.”

3. Ideas Lab

The "Ideas Lab" is a funding mechanism designed to support the development and implementation of creative

and innovative project ideas that have the potential to transform research paradigms and/or solve intractable

problems. An Ideas Lab may be run independently, or in parallel, with the issuance of an NSF funding

opportunity on the same topic. These project ideas typically will be high-risk/high-impact, as they represent new

and unproven ideas, approaches and/or technologies. This mechanism was developed collaboratively within

NSF, modeled on the "sandpit" workshops that are a key component of the United Kingdom Research Council’s

"IDEAs Factory" program.

The implementation of the Ideas Lab mechanism is a four-stage process as described below:

a. Stage 1: Selection of Panelists

There are two separate panels convened for an Ideas Lab: a selection panel and an Ideas Lab panel. The role of

the selection panel is to provide advice on the selection of participants. The role of the Ideas Lab panel is to

provide an assessment of the project ideas developed there. The individuals selected to participate in each of

these panels are subject matter experts for the specific topic of the Ideas Lab. All panelists are barred from

receiving any research funding through, or in any other way collaborating on, the particular Ideas Lab in which

they are involved.

b. Stage 2: Selection of Participants

A "call for participants" solicitation that describes the specific focus of the Ideas Lab will be issued. The

solicitation will specify the content and submission instructions for such applications.

The project description is limited to two pages and should include information regarding the applicant’s specific

expertise and interest in the topic area, as well as about certain personal attributes that enhance the success of

the Ideas Lab workshop mechanism (e.g., experience and interest in working in teams, communication skills,

level of creativity, willingness to take risks). Applicants also must include a Biographical Sketch and Current and

Pending Support information (both of which must be prepared in accordance with standard NSF formatting

guidelines). All other elements of a "full proposal" are waived (i.e., Project Summary, References Cited, Budget

and Budget Justification, Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources). The application must be submitted as a

preliminary proposal in FastLane. No appendices or supplementary documents may be submitted.

Applicants are notified electronically of NSF’s decision regarding whether they are invited or not invited to

participate in the Ideas Lab. Applicants will be informed about the context of the review and the criteria that

were used to assess the applications in the form of a panel summary, but will not receive individual reviews or

other review-related feedback.

Grant Proposal Guide II-25 NSF 15-1

c. Stage 3: Ideas Lab

The agenda and duration31 of the Ideas Lab are communicated to meeting participants by the cognizant NSF

Program Officer. Anonymous real-time peer review involving the participants and the Ideas Lab panel is

incorporated into the workshop format, providing iterative constructive feedback during the development of

project ideas. The Ideas Lab concept incorporates a "guided creativity" process, thus the use of a facilitator(s) is

included, both to guide the creation of interdisciplinary teams and the creative development of ideas, and to

ensure that the workshop progresses in a productive manner. At the end of the Ideas Lab, the Ideas Lab panel

will provide a consensus report summarizing their evaluation of each project idea. The recommendations of the

Ideas Lab panel are advisory to the NSF. Within seven to fourteen days following the Ideas Lab, the NSF

Program Officers will determine which project ideas are meritorious and should be invited as full proposals. At

the NSF Program Officers’ discretion (subject to Division Director concurrence), they may invite none, some, or

all of the project ideas as full proposals, with the final funding decision to occur after the full proposals have been

received and reviewed. Invited full proposals (which are prepared in accordance with standard research proposal

formatting guidelines) must be submitted via FastLane or Grants.gov within two months of receiving NSF

notification after the Ideas Lab.

d. Stage 4: Review and recommendation of full proposals

Invited proposals will be reviewed internally by the cognizant NSF Program Officers, the Ideas Lab panelists, and

other external reviewers, as appropriate. Resulting awards will be administered in accordance with standard NSF

policies and procedures, including no-cost extensions and supplemental funding requests. Renewed funding of

an Ideas Lab award may be requested only through submission of a full proposal that will be subject to external

merit review. Such proposals would be designated as an “Ideas Lab renewal.”

4. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED)

As part of its effort to promote full utilization of highly qualified scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, and to

develop scientific and technical talent, the Foundation has the following goals:

• to reduce or remove barriers to participation in research and training by physically disabled individuals by

providing special equipment and assistance under awards made by NSF; and

• to encourage disabled individuals to pursue careers in science and engineering by stimulating the

development and demonstration of special equipment that facilitates their work performance.

Individuals with disabilities eligible for facilitation awards include principal investigators, other senior personnel,

and graduate and undergraduate students. The cognizant NSF Program Officer will make decisions regarding

what constitutes appropriate support on a case-by-case basis. The specific nature, purpose, and need for

equipment or assistance should be described in sufficient detail in the proposal to permit evaluation by

knowledgeable reviewers.

There is no separate program for funding of special equipment or assistance. Requests are made in conjunction

with regular competitive proposals, or as a supplemental funding request to an existing NSF award. Specific

instructions for each type of request are provided below.

a. Requests as part of a competitive proposal submission

Funds may be requested to purchase special equipment, modify equipment or provide services required

specifically for the work to be undertaken. Requests for funds for equipment or assistance that compensate in a

general way for the disabling condition are not permitted. For example, funds may be requested to provide:

prosthetic devices to manipulate a particular apparatus; equipment to convert sound to visual signals, or vice

versa, for a particular experiment; access to a special site or to a mode of transportation (except as defined

below); a reader or interpreter with special technical competence related to the project; or other special-purpose

equipment or assistance needed to conduct a particular project. Items, however, such as standard wheel chairs,

prosthetics, hearing aids, TDD/text-phones, or general readers for the blind would not be supported because the

31 Ideas Labs are generally one to five days in duration.

Grant Proposal Guide II-26 NSF 15-1

need for them is not specific to the proposed project. Similarly, ramps, elevators, or other structural modifications

of research facilities are not eligible for direct support under this program.

No maximum funding amount has been established for such requests. It is expected, however, that the cost

(including equipment adaptation and installation) will not be a major component of the total proposed budget for

the project. Requests for funds for special equipment or assistance to facilitate the participation of individuals

with disabilities should be included in the proposed budget for the project and documented in the budget

justification. The specific nature, purpose and need for such equipment or assistance should be described in

sufficient detail in the Project Description to permit evaluation of the request by knowledgeable reviewers.

b. Supplemental funding requests to existing NSF grants

Supplemental funds for special equipment or assistance to facilitate participation in NSF-supported projects by

persons with disabilities may be provided under existing NSF grants. Normally, title is vested in the grantee

organization for equipment purchased in conjunction with NSF-supported activities. In accordance with the

applicable grant terms and conditions, the grantee organization guarantees use of the equipment for the specific

project during the period of work funded by the Foundation, and assures its use in an appropriate manner after

project completion. In instances involving special equipment for persons with disabilities, the need for such may

be unique to the individual. In such cases, the grantee organization may elect to transfer title to the individual to

assure appropriate use after project completion.

Supplemental requests should be submitted electronically by using the ”Supplemental Funding Request” function

in FastLane and should include a brief description of the request, a budget and a budget justification. Requests

must be submitted at least two months before funds are needed. Funding decisions will be made on the basis of

the justification and availability of program funds with any resultant funding provided through a formal

amendment of the existing NSF grant.

5. Collaborative Proposals

A collaborative proposal is one in which investigators from two or more organizations wish to collaborate on a

unified research project. Collaborative proposals may be submitted to NSF in one of two methods: as a single

proposal, in which a single award is being requested (with subawards administered by the lead organization); or

by simultaneous submission of proposals from different organizations, with each organization requesting a

separate award. In either case, the lead organization’s proposal must contain all of the requisite sections as a

single package to be provided to reviewers (that will happen automatically when procedures below are followed).

All collaborative proposals must clearly describe the roles to be played by the other organizations, specify the

managerial arrangements, and explain the advantages of the multi-organizational effort within the Project

Description. PIs are strongly encouraged to contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer prior to submission of a

collaborative proposal.

a. Submission of a collaborative proposal from one organization

The single proposal method allows investigators from two or more organizations who have developed an

integrated research project to submit a single, focused proposal. A single investigator bears primary

responsibility for the administration of the grant and discussions with NSF, and, at the discretion of the

organizations involved, investigators from any of the participating organizations may be designated as co-PIs.

Please note, however, that if awarded, a single award would be made to the submitting organization, with any

collaborators listed as subawards. (See GPG Chapter II.C.2.g(vi)(e) for additional instructions on preparation of

this type of proposal.)

If a proposed subaward includes funding to support postdoctoral researchers, the mentoring activities to be

provided for such individuals must be incorporated in the supplemental mentoring plan outlined in GPG Chapter

II.C.2.j.

Grant Proposal Guide II-27 NSF 15-1

b. Submission of a collaborative proposal from multiple organizations

Simultaneous submission of proposals allows multiple organizations to submit a unified set of certain proposal

sections, as well as information unique to each organization. The lead organization is required to submit a

Project Summary, Project Description, References Cited, Data Management Plan, and Postdoctoral Mentoring

Plan (if applicable) for all organizations in the collaborative. Other sections must be submitted by each

organization in the collaborative. All collaborative proposals arranged as separate submissions from multiple

organizations must be submitted via FastLane. For these proposals, the project title must begin with the words

"Collaborative Research:”. If funded, each organization bears responsibility for a separate award.

Required sections of the proposal differ based on the organization’s role. The following sections are required for

a collaborative proposal submitted by:

Lead Organization

Non-Lead Organization

• Cover Sheet

• Project Summary

• Table of Contents (automatically generated)

• Biographical Sketch(es)

• Project Description

• Budget and Budget Justification

• References Cited

• Current and Pending Support

• Biographical Sketch(es)

• Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

• Budget and Budget Justification

• Current and Pending Support

• Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

• Data Management Plan

• Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan (if applicable)

See GPG Chapter II.C.2.j for additional guidance on mentoring and data management plan requirements for

collaborative proposals. FastLane will combine the proposal submission for printing or electronic viewing.

To submit the collaborative proposal, the following process must be completed:32

(i) Each non-lead organization must assign their proposal a proposal PIN. This proposal PIN and the

temporary proposal ID generated by FastLane when the non-lead proposal is created must be provided to the

lead organization before the lead organization submits its proposal to NSF.

(ii) The lead organization must then enter each non-lead organization(s) proposal PIN and temporary

proposal ID into the FastLane lead proposal by using the "Link Collaborative Proposals" option found on the

FastLane "Form Preparation" screen. Given that such separately submitted proposals constitute a “single”

proposal submission to NSF, it is imperative that the proposals be submitted within a reasonable timeframe to

one another.

(iii) All components of the collaborative proposal must meet any established deadline, and failure to do so

may result in the entire collaborative proposal being returned without review.

6. Proposals for Equipment

Proposals for specialized equipment may be submitted by an organization for: individual investigators; groups of

investigators within the same department; several departments; organization(s) participating in a collaborative or

joint arrangement; any components of an organization; or a region. One individual must be designated as PI.

Investigators may be working in closely related areas or their research may be multidisciplinary.

An equipment proposal must contain all of the following proposal sections:

32Detailed instructions for the electronic preparation and submission of collaborative proposals are available on the FastLane

website.

Grant Proposal Guide II-28 NSF 15-1

• Cover Sheet

• Project Summary: GPG Chapter II.C.2.b should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal.

• Project Description (not to exceed 15 pages) that includes:

a. an overall acquisition plan which discusses arrangements for acquisition, maintenance and

operation. Equipment to be purchased, modified or constructed must be described in sufficient

detail to allow comparison of its capabilities with the needs of the proposed activities;

b. a description, from each potential major user, of the project(s) for which the equipment will be

used. This description must be succinct, not necessarily as detailed as in a full research

proposal, and must emphasize the intrinsic merit of the activity and the importance of the

equipment to it. A brief summary will suffice for auxiliary users; and

c. a description of comparable equipment already at the proposing organization(s), if applicable,

and an explanation of why it cannot be used. This includes comparable government-owned

equipment that is on-site.

• Biographical Sketch(es) of the person(s) who will have overall responsibility for maintenance and

operation and a brief statement of qualifications. (GPG Chapter II.C.2.f should be consulted to prepare

this portion of the proposal; also see GPG II.C.2.f(iii)).

• Proposal Budget and Budget Justification: An annual budget and budget justification for the operation,

maintenance and administration of the proposed equipment (GPG Chapter II.C.2.g should be consulted

to prepare this portion of the proposal).

• Current and Pending Support: GPG Chapter II.C.2.h should be consulted to prepare this portion of the

proposal.

• Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources that includes a description of the physical facility, including

floor plans or other appropriate information, where the equipment will be located; a narrative description

of the source of funds available for operation and maintenance of the proposed equipment; a brief

description of other support services available, and a statement of why the equipment is severable or

non-severable from the physical facility (GPG Chapter II.C.2.i should be consulted to prepare this portion

of the proposal).

• Data Management Plan: GPG Chapter II.C.2.j should be consulted to prepare this portion of the

proposal.

• Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan (if applicable): GPG Chapter II.C.2.j should be consulted to prepare this

portion of the proposal.

These proposals normally compete with proposals for research or education projects.33

7. Proposals Involving Vertebrate Animals

a. Any project proposing use of vertebrate animals for research or education shall comply with the Animal

Welfare Act [7 U.S.C. 2131, et seq.] and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture

[9 CFR 1.1-4.11] pertaining to the humane care, handling, and treatment of vertebrate animals held or used for

research, teaching or other activities supported by Federal awards. In accordance with these requirements,

proposed projects involving use of any vertebrate animal for research or education must be approved by the

submitting organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before an award can be made.

For this approval to be accepted by NSF, the organization must have a current Public Health Service (PHS)

Approved Assurance.

33See AAG Chapter IV.D for additional information on the administration of equipment awards.

Grant Proposal Guide II-29 NSF 15-1

In the case of research involving the study of wildlife in the field or in the laboratory, for the provision in the PHS

Assurance for Institutional Commitment (Section II) that requires the organization to establish and maintain a

program for activities involving animals in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory

Animals (Guide), the organization has established and will maintain a program for activities involving animals

according to the Guide. The organization will follow recommendations specified in the Guide for details involving

laboratory animals, and taxon-specific guidelines approved by the American Society of Ichthyologists and

Herpetologists, the American Society of Mammalogists, and the Ornithological Council, as is appropriate for the

taxon to be studied.34

b. Sufficient information must be provided within the 15-page Project Description to enable reviewers to

evaluate the choice of species, number of animals to be used, and any necessary exposure of animals to

discomfort, pain, or injury.

c. Research facilities subject to the Animal Welfare Act using or intending to use live animals in research and

who receive Federal funding are required to register the facility with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. A current listing of licensed animal dealers also may be

obtained from APHIS. The location of the nearest APHIS Regional Office, as well as information concerning this

and other APHIS activities, may be obtained at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/.

d. Projects involving the care or use of vertebrate animals at a foreign organization or foreign field site also

require approval of research protocols by the U.S. grantee’s IACUC. If the project is to be funded through an

award to a foreign organization or through an individual fellowship award that will support activities at a foreign

organization, NSF will require a statement explicitly listing the proposer’s name and referencing the title of the

award to confirm that the activities will be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws in the foreign country

and that the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (see

http://www.cioms.ch/) will be followed.

e. The following information regarding the organization’s intention to utilize vertebrate animals as part of

the project should be provided on the NSF Cover Sheet:

(1) The box for "Vertebrate Animals" must be checked on the Cover Sheet if use of vertebrate animals is

envisioned.

(2) The IACUC approval date (if obtained) must be identified in the space provided.

If IACUC approval has not been obtained prior to submission, the proposer should indicate "Pending" in the

space provided for the approval date. If a decision is made to fund the proposal, the organization must provide a

signed copy of the official IACUC approval letter to the cognizant NSF Program Officer. The letter should

indicate approval of the proposed activities, explicitly listing the proposer’s name and referencing the title of the

NSF proposal, and must be submitted prior to an award being issued.

(3) The PHS Approved Animal Welfare Assurance Number must be entered in the space provided.

f. For fellowship proposals submitted by individuals that involve use of vertebrate animals, a copy of the

approval letter from the IACUC (including Assurance Number and organizational signature) should be included

in the Supplementary Documentation section of the proposal or sent directly to the cognizant NSF Program

Officer. The letter should indicate approval of the proposed activities.

If IACUC approval has not been obtained prior to submission, the proposer should indicate "Pending" in the

space provided for the approval date. If a decision is made to fund the proposal, the organization must provide a

signed copy of the official IACUC approval letter to the cognizant program. The letter should indicate approval of

the proposed activities, explicitly listing the proposer’s name and referencing the title of the NSF proposal, and

34 Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research; Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the Use of Wild

Mammals in Research; Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research; Guidelines for the Use of Live Amphibians and Reptiles

in Field and Laboratory Research

Grant Proposal Guide II-30 NSF 15-1

must be submitted prior to an award being issued.

See also AAG Chapter VI.B.3 for additional information on the administration of awards that utilize vertebrate

animals.

8. Proposals Involving Human Subjects

a. Projects involving research with human subjects must ensure that subjects are protected from research

risks in conformance with the relevant federal policy known as the Common Rule (Federal Policy for the

Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR 690). All projects involving human subjects must either (1) have approval

from the organization's Institutional Review Board (IRB) before issuance of an NSF award or, (2) must affirm that

the IRB has declared the research exempt from IRB review, in accordance with the applicable subsection, as

established in section 101(b) of the Common Rule. If certification of exemption is provided after submission of

the proposal and before the award is issued, the exemption number corresponding to one or more of the

exemption categories also must be included in the documentation provided to NSF.

The only acceptable IRB approval documents are those that approve a human subjects research protocol;

approvals "in concept" are not acceptable. The NSF also cannot accept any IRB document that qualifies

conditions that must be met before human subjects work can be carried out. If IRB approval cannot be obtained

at the time of the award action because the development of a human subjects research protocol requires

preliminary or other conceptual work to take place, the PI should notify the cognizant NSF Program Officer

assigned to the proposal. In such a case, NSF may add conditions to the award that prevent any research

involving human subjects from being carried out, and otherwise restrict the drawing down of funds, until IRB

approval has been obtained.

If the project involves human subjects and is to be performed outside of the U.S., evidence of IRB approval also

is required. If there is no IRB approval provided, and the foreign country is not included in the Department of

Health and Human Services, Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), International Compilation of

Human Research Standards (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcompilation.html), nor is an

Assurance on file with OHRP (http://ohrp.cit.nih.gov/search/search.aspx?styp=bsc), NSF may decline to support

the project.

b. The following information regarding the organization’s intention to utilize human subjects as part of the

project should be provided on the NSF Cover Sheet:

(1) The box for "Human Subjects" must be checked on the Cover Sheet if use of human subjects is

envisioned.

(2) If human subject activities are exempt from IRB review, provide the exemption number(s) corresponding

to one or more of the exemption categories. The six categories of research that qualify for exemption from

coverage by the regulations are defined in the Common Rule for Protection of Human Subjects.

(3) If the research is not designated as exempt, the IRB approval date should be identified in the space

provided. This date, at minimum, should cover the period at which the project is initiated. If IRB approval has

not been obtained prior to submission, the proposer should indicate "Pending" in the space provided for the

approval date. If a decision is made to fund the proposal, the organization must provide a signed copy of the IRB

approval letter to the cognizant program. The letter should indicate approval of the proposed activities and must

be submitted prior to an award being issued.

(4) Enter the Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) Number that the proposer has on file with OHRP, if available.

See also AAG Chapter VI.B.1 for additional information on the administration of awards that utilize human

subjects.

Grant Proposal Guide II-31 NSF 15-1

9. Proposals for Conferences35

NSF supports conferences in special areas of science and engineering that bring experts together to discuss

recent research or education findings or to expose other researchers or students to new research and education

techniques. NSF encourages the convening in the U.S. of major international conferences. Conferences will be

supported only if equivalent results cannot be obtained at regular meetings of professional societies. Although

requests for support of conferences ordinarily originate with educational institutions or scientific and engineering

societies, they also may come from other groups. Shared support by several Federal agencies, States or private

organizations is encouraged. Because proceedings of such conferences normally should be published in

professional journals, requests for support may include publication costs. Proposals for conferences should

generally be made at least a year in advance of the scheduled date. Conferences, including the facilities in

which they are held, funded in whole or in part with NSF funds, must be accessible to participants with

disabilities.

NSF funds are not to be spent for meals and coffee breaks for intramural meetings of an organization or any of

its components, including, but not limited to, laboratories, departments and centers, as a direct cost.

A conference36 proposal must contain the elements identified below.

• Cover Sheet

• Project Summary (GPG Chapter II.C.2.b should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal).

• Project Description (not to exceed 15 pages) that includes:

a. A statement of the need for such a gathering and a list of topics;

b. A listing of recent meetings on the same subject, including dates and locations;

c. The names of the chairperson and members of organizing committees and their organizational

affiliations;

d. Information on the location and probable date(s) of the meeting and the method of

announcement or invitation;

e. A statement of how the meeting will be organized and conducted, how the results of the meeting

will be disseminated and how the meeting will contribute to the enhancement and improvement

of scientific, engineering and/or educational activities;

f. A plan for recruitment of, and support for, speakers and other attendees, that includes

participation of groups underrepresented in science and engineering (e.g., underrepresented

minorities, women, and persons with disabilities); and,

g. A description of plans to identify resources for child care and other types of family care at the

conference site to allow individuals with family care responsibilities to attend. Attendance for

some participants will be dependent on the availability of such resources. This information

should help enable attendees to make arrangements for family care, as needed.

• Proposal Budget: A budget, and budget justification, for the conference that is prepared in accordance

with GPG Chapter II.C.2.g. The budget may include participant support for transportation (when

appropriate), per diem costs, stipends, publication and other conference-related costs. Note: Participant

support costs must be excluded from the indirect cost base; see GPG Chapter II.C.2.g(v). For additional

information on program income associated with conferences, see AAG Chapter III.D.4.

35 This coverage also applies to symposia and workshop proposals.

36 Costs associated with conferences supported by an NSF grant must be specifically and clearly identified in the proposed

scope of work and budget, and approved by NSF.

Grant Proposal Guide II-32 NSF 15-1

• Current and Pending Support: The support requested or available from other Federal agencies and other

sources. GPG Chapter II.C.2.h should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal.

• Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources: If there will be support from other sources for the

conference, such information should be included 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. GPG Chapter II.C.2.i should be consulted to prepare this portion of the

proposal.

• Data Management Plan: Plans for management and sharing of any data products resulting from the

activity. GPG Chapter II.C.2.j should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposal.

10. Proposals to Support International Travel

Proposals for travel support for U.S. participation in international scientific and engineering meetings held abroad

are handled by the NSF organizational unit with program responsibility for the area of interest.

Group travel awards are encouraged as the primary means of support for international travel. A university,

professional society or other non-profit organization may apply for funds to enable it to coordinate and support

U.S. participation in one or more international scientific meeting(s) abroad. Proposals submitted for this purpose

should address the same items as those indicated for conferences (see Section 9 above), with particular

attention to plans for composition and recruitment of the travel group. Information on planned speakers should

be provided where available from the conference organizer.

Group travel proposals may request support only for the international travel costs of the proposed activity. Group

travel grantees are required to retain supporting documentation that funds were spent in accordance with the

original intent of the proposal. Such documentation may be required in final reports and is subject to audit.

11. Support for Development of NSF Centers

NSF provides support for a variety of individual Centers and Centers programs that contribute to the

Foundation's vision as outlined in the NSF Strategic Plan. Centers exploit opportunities in science, engineering

and technology in which the complexity of the research problem(s) or the resources needed to solve the(se)

problem(s) require the advantages of scope, scale, change, duration, equipment, facilities, and students that can

only be provided by an academic research center. They focus on investigations at the frontiers of knowledge not

normally attainable through individual investigations, at the interfaces of disciplines and/or by incorporating fresh

approaches to the core of disciplines. Centers focus on integrative learning and discovery and demonstrate

leadership in broadening participation through focused investments in a diverse set of partner organizations and

individuals. In doing so, they draw upon, and contribute to, the development of the Nation's full intellectual talent.

Most Center awards are limited to a maximum duration of ten years and are often subject to mid-course external

merit review. Proposers interested in learning more about current or future NSF Centers are encouraged to

contact the appropriate disciplinary NSF Program Officer.

12. Support for Development of Major Research Equipment and Facilities

As an integral part of its responsibility for strengthening the science and engineering infrastructure of the country,

NSF provides support for the construction and operation of major research equipment and facilities. NSF

depends on the research communities to provide the justification, planning, development, and implementation of

facility projects. This normally occurs through National Academies studies, workshop reports, professional

society activities, and other community-based mechanisms, including engineering studies and research projects

related to the development of new technologies. Many of these mechanisms are funded by interested NSF

Programs on the basis of merit-reviewed proposals. The construction funding mechanism depends on the scale

of the proposed facility. For large facilities construction, the Major Research Equipment and Facilities

Construction (MREFC) account is one option. Proposers are strongly encouraged to contact the appropriate

NSF Program to discuss the availability of funding and the appropriate funding mechanisms in advance of

proposal submission.

Grant Proposal Guide II-33 NSF 15-1

13. Projects Requiring High-Performance Computing Resources, Large Amounts of Data Storage, or

Advanced Visualization Resources

Many research projects require access to computational, data storage or visualization resources in order to

complete the work proposed. For those projects that require such resources at a scale that is beyond that

typically available locally, NSF supports a number of resources. For the most computationally intensive projects,

the Blue Waters system at University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign, is the most suitable. Blue Waters is

designed to support a small number (~50) of research teams involved with projects requiring the most advanced

computational and data resources. Currently, the allocation process for that resource is done directly via

proposal submission to the cognizant Program Officer in the Division of Advanced CyberInfrastructure within the

NSF Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering. Proposals are reviewed for both their

scientific and computational needs. The Blue Waters supercomputer provides sustained performance of 1

petaflop on a range of real-world science and engineering applications. It is one of the most powerful

supercomputers in the world. Those interested should visit the Blue Waters portal

(https://bluewaters.ncsa.illinois.edu/) for more details of the system's hardware and capabilities.

Yellowstone, which is part of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, is a significant resource, 1.5

petaflop peak speed, but one that is designed to meet the needs of the atmospheric and related-sciences

communities. Yellowstone operates its own allocations process and those interested in obtaining time and/or

storage should consult the cognizant program director in the Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences

within the Geosciences Directorate.

The most general set of computational and data resources funded by the NSF are accessible through the

XSEDE project. XSEDE provides the integrating fabric for a collection of very powerful supercomputers, a high-

throughput computing environment, high-volume data storage facilities, advanced visualization services,

connected by a high-bandwidth private network, a training education and outreach program in how to use its

services and an extended collaborative support program to assist researchers in using the advanced

computational resources. The physical resources themselves are provided by Service Providers (SP) via

separate awards from the NSF. Allocations of those resources for large projects are determined by the XSEDE

Resource Advisory Committee, which meets quarterly, using an external set of experts. Smaller requests do not

require a proposal or review and a simple on-line process may be used to request such an allocation. NSF

encourages prospective users to seek more information at https://www.xsede.org, where they can also register

for a portal account.

Grant Proposal Guide II-34 NSF 15-1

Exhibit II-1: Proposal Preparation Checklist

It is imperative that all proposals conform to the proposal preparation and submission instructions specified in

this Guide. Conformance with all preparation and submission instructions is required and will be strictly enforced

unless a deviation has been approved in advance of proposal submission. Note that some NSF program

solicitations modify the general provisions of the GPG, and in such cases, the guidelines provided in the

solicitation must be followed. Effective with this implementation of the PAPPG, FastLane will begin using the

rules specified for each type of proposal, (e.g., RAPID, EAGER, Equipment, Conference, and International

Travel) to check for compliance prior to submission to NSF. Proposers are strongly advised to review the

applicable sections of the Grant Proposal Guide pertinent to the type of proposal being developed PRIOR to

submission. NSF will not accept37 or will return without review proposals that are not consistent with these

instructions. See GPG Chapter IV.B for additional information.

Prior to electronic submission, it is strongly recommended that an administrative review be conducted to ensure

that proposals comply with the instructions, in the format specified. This checklist is not intended to be an all-

inclusive repetition of the required proposal contents and associated proposal preparation guidelines. It is,

however, meant to highlight certain critical items so they will not be overlooked when the proposal is prepared.

[ ] General:

[ ] The proposal is responsive to and compliant with the provisions in the program description,

announcement, or solicitation.

[ ] All required preparation and submission instructions specified in the GPG have been followed.

[ ] System for Award Management (SAM) registration is current. Note that this registration must be

maintained with current information at all times during which the organization has an active

award or a proposal under consideration by NSF.

[ ] The proposal will be submitted to NSF electronically via use of either the NSF FastLane System

or Grants.gov, unless a deviation has been granted by NSF.

[ ] If the proposal has been previously declined and is being resubmitted, the proposal has been

revised to take into account the major comments from the prior NSF review.

[ ] The proposed work is appropriate for funding by NSF, and is not a duplicate of, or substantially

similar to, a proposal already under consideration by NSF from the same submitter.

[ ] The proposal contains all required sections for the type of proposal being submitted.

[ ] The proposal will be submitted by 5 p.m. submitter's local time on the established deadline date.

[ ] Single Copy Documents:

[ ] Information about Principal Investigators/Project Directors (except for the required information

regarding current or previous Federal research support and the name(s) of the PI/co-PI,

submission of the information is voluntary).

[ ] Authorization to Deviate from NSF Proposal Preparation Requirements (if applicable).

[ ] List of Suggested Reviewers, or Reviewers Not to Include (optional).

[ ] Proprietary or Privileged Information Statement (if applicable).

[ ] Proposal Certifications (submitted by the Authorized Organizational Representative within five

working days following the electronic submission of the proposal.) (See GPG Chapter II.C.1.e for

a complete listing of proposal certifications.)

[ ] SF LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if applicable).

37 Proposal Not Accepted is defined as FastLane will not permit submission of the proposal.

Grant Proposal Guide II-35 NSF 15-1

[ ] Cover Sheet:

[ ] Program Description/Announcement/Solicitation No., or Grant Proposal Guide has been

selected.

[ ] Specific NSF program(s) have been selected (if known).

[ ] For renewal proposal, previous award number has been entered.

[ ] Related preliminary proposal number has been entered (if applicable).

[ ] Appropriate Box(es) have been checked, and requisite information has been provided, if the

proposal includes any of the items identified. Note in particular, proposals that include use of

human subjects or vertebrate animals require additional information to be submitted with these

types of proposals.

[ ] Type of collaborative proposal (from one or multiple organizations) has been selected, where

applicable.

[ ] Type of proposal being developed has been selected.

[ ] Project Summary:

[ ] Project Summary does not exceed one page.

[ ] Text has been entered into the overview, intellectual merit and broader impacts statements text

blocks.

[ ] If the Project Summary contains special characters, separate headings for overview, statement

on intellectual merit, and statement on broader impacts have been included.

[ ] Project Description:

[ ] Project Description does not exceed 15 pages.

[ ] Both merit review criteria have been addressed.

[ ] Project Description contains, as a separate section within the narrative, a section labeled

“Broader Impacts of the Proposed Work”.

[ ] Project Description is self-contained and Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) have not been

included.

[ ] Results from Prior NSF Support have been provided for PIs and co-PIs who have received NSF

support within the last five years. Results related to Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts are

described under two separate, distinct headings.

[ ]

References Cited:

[ ] This section includes bibliographic citations only and does not provide parenthetical information

outside of the 15-page Project Description. Each reference is in the specified format.

[ ]

Biographical Sketch(es):

[ ] Biographical Sketch has been provided for all senior personnel and does not exceed two pages

per person.

[ ] The content described is in accordance with the instructions, and does not contain additional

information beyond that specified in the instructions.

[ ] In FastLane, if biographical sketches for all senior personnel are uploaded in a single PDF file

associated with the PI, text has been inserted or a document uploaded that states, “Not

Applicable” for any co-PI or Senior Person.

Grant Proposal Guide II-36 NSF 15-1

[ ] Proposal Budget: (annual and cumulative)

[ ] The proposal contains a budget for each year of support requested.

[ ] Each budget line item is documented and justified in the budget justification.

[ ] The budget justification does not exceed three pages per proposal.

[ ] If the proposal includes subawards, each subaward has uploaded a budget justification of no

more than three pages. Note that the 3-page subaward budget justification is in addition to the

three pages allowed for the proposal budget justification.

[ ] Cost Sharing

[ ] Unless required by an NSF program solicitation, voluntary committed cost sharing has not been

included. Note that voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited and Line M on the proposal

budget will not be available for use by the proposer. While not required by NSF, awardee

organizations may, at their own discretion, continue to contribute voluntary uncommitted cost

sharing to NSF-sponsored projects. These resources are not auditable by NSF and should not

be included in the proposal budget or budget justification.

[ ] Current and Pending Support

[ ] A Current and Pending Support document has been provided for all senior personnel.

[ ] The proposal being submitted has been included on each current and pending support

document.

[ ] In FastLane, if Current and Pending Support information for all senior personnel is uploaded in a

single PDF file associated with the PI, text has been inserted or a document uploaded that

states, “Not Applicable” for any co-PI or Senior Person.

[ ] Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

[ ] An aggregated description of the internal and external resources (both physical and personnel)

that the organization and its collaborators will provide to the project, should it be funded, has

been included.

[ ] No quantifiable financial information has been provided.

[ ] For research proposals, if there are no facilities, equipment or other resources identified, a

statement to that effect has been included in this section of the proposal and uploaded into

FastLane.

[ ] Special Information and Supplementary Documentation:

[ ] The types of information identified in GPG Chapter II.C.2.j have been included, as appropriate.

[ ] For proposals38 that request funding to support postdoctoral researchers, a supplementary

document, not to exceed one page, that describes the mentoring activities that will be provided

for such individuals, has been included.

[ ] The proposal includes a supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled “Data

Management Plan”. This supplementary document describes how the proposal will conform to

NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of research results.

[ ] Any additional items specified in a relevant program solicitation have been included.

38 For purposes of meeting the mentoring requirement, simultaneously submitted collaborative proposals, and, collaborative

proposals that include subawards, constitute a single unified project. Therefore, only one mentoring plan may be submitted

for the entire project.

Grant Proposal Guide II-37 NSF 15-1

Exhibit II-2: Potentially Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest

Unless a waiver has been granted by NSF, a reviewer cannot review a proposal if:

• the reviewer, the reviewer’s spouse, minor child, or business partner;

• the organization where the reviewer is employed, has an arrangement for future employment or is

negotiating for employment; or

• the organization where the reviewer is an officer, director, trustee, or partner,

has a financial interest in the outcome of the proposal.

Unless a waiver has been granted by NSF, a potential reviewer also may be barred from reviewing a proposal, if

it involves individuals with whom he/she has a personal relationship, such as a close relative, current or former

collaborator, or former thesis student/advisor.

Unless a waiver has been granted by NSF, a disqualifying conflict may exist, if a proposal involves an

organization or other entity with which the potential reviewer has a connection. Such potentially disqualifying

connections include:

• a reviewer’s recent former employer;

• an organization in which the reviewer is an active participant;

• an institution at which the reviewer is currently enrolled as a student, or at which he/she serves as a

visiting committee member; or

• an entity with which the reviewer has or seeks some other business or financial relationship (including

receipt of an honorarium).

Grant Proposal Guide II-38 NSF 15-1

Exhibit II-3: Drug-Free Workplace Certification

Instructions for Certification

1. By electronically signing the NSF Cover Sheet and submitting this proposal, the grantee is providing the

certifications set out below.

2. The certification set out below is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when

the agency determined to award the grant. If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a

false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, the agency, in

addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under

the Drug-Free Workplace Act.

3. For grantees other than individuals, Alternate I applies.

4. For grantees who are individuals, Alternate II applies.

Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements

Alternate I (Grantees Other Than Individuals)

The grantee certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by:

(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing,

possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee’s workplace and specifying the

actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;

(b) Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about --

(1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;

(2) The grantee’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;

(3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and

(4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the

workplace;

copy of the statement required by paragraph (a);

(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment

under the grant, the employee will --

(1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and

(2) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute

occurring in the workplace, no later than five calendar days after such conviction;

(e) Notifying the agency in writing, within 10 calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2)

from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction.

Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or

other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency

has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification

number(s) of each affected grant;

Grant Proposal Guide II-39 NSF 15-1

(f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph

(d)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted--

(1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination,

consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or

(2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation

program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or

other appropriate agency;

(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).

Alternate II (Grantees Who Are Individuals)

(a) The grantee certifies that, as a condition of the grant, he or she will not engage in the unlawful

manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance in conducting any

activity with the grant.

(b) If convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any grant

activity, he or she will report the conviction, in writing, within 10 calendar days of the conviction, to every

grant officer or other designee, unless the Federal agency designates a central point for the receipt of

such notices. When notice is made to such a central point, it shall include the identification number(s) of

each affected grant.

For NSF, grantee notification should be made to the Cost Analysis & Audit Resolution Branch, Division of

Institution & Award Support, NSF, Arlington, VA 22230.

Grant Proposal Guide II-40 NSF 15-1

Exhibit II-4: Debarment and Suspension Certification

Instruction on Certification Regarding Debarment and Suspension

1. By electronically signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary participant is providing the

certification set out below.

2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of

participation in this covered transaction. The prospective participant shall submit an explanation of why it

cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in

connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction.

However, failure of the prospective primary participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall

disqualify such person from participation in this transaction.

3. The certification in this clause is any material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed

when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the

prospective primary participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other

remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction

for cause or default.

4. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency

to whom this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary participant learns that its

certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed

circumstances.

5. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction,

participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in

this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of the rules

implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal

is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.

6. The prospective primary participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed

covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction

with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation

in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction.

7. The prospective primary participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the

clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -

Lower Tier Covered Transaction", provided by the department or agency entering into this covered

transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions.

8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower

tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the

covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the

method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is

not required to, check the Nonprocurement List.

9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in

order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a

participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the

ordinary course of business dealings.

10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered

transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended,

debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other

remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction

for cause or default.

Grant Proposal Guide II-41 NSF 15-1

Certification

(1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its

principals: (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or

voluntarily excluded from a covered transaction by any Federal department or agency; (b) Have not

within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered

against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to

obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction;

violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,

falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (c) Are not

presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or

local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and (d)

Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public

transactions (Federal, State or local) terminated for cause or default.

(2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification,

such prospective participant shall include an explanation with this proposal.

Grant Proposal Guide II-42 NSF 15-1

Exhibit II-5: Lobbying Certification

Instructions on Certification Regarding Lobbying

This certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant or cooperative agreement exceeding

$100,000 and for an award of a Federal loan or a commitment providing for the United States to insure or

guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000. The Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative

Agreements also is included in full text on the FastLane submission screen.

Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any

person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of

Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection

with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal

loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal,

amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for

influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an

officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this

Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit

Standard Form LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” in accordance with its instructions.

(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents

for all subawards at all tiers including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and

cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was

made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction

imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be

subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Grant Proposal Guide II-43 NSF 15-1

Exhibit II-6: Nondiscrimination Certification

Instructions for Nondiscrimination Certification

1. In accordance with NSF policy, by electronically signing the proposal, the Authorized Organizational

Representative is providing the requisite Certification of Compliance with National Science Foundation

Nondiscrimination Regulations and Policies. This Certification sets forth the nondiscrimination obligations with

which all awardees must comply. These obligations also apply to subrecipients, subgrantees, and

subcontractors under the award. The proposer therefore, shall obtain the NSF Nondiscrimination Certification

from each organization that applies to be, or serves as a subrecipient, subgrantee or subcontractor under the

award (for other than the provision of commercially available supplies, materials, equipment or general support

services) prior to entering into the subaward arrangement.

2. The proposer shall provide immediate notice to the Foundation if at any time the proposer learns that its

certification was erroneous when submitted, or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

Certification of Compliance with National Science Foundation Nondiscrimination

Regulations and Policies

By electronically signing the proposal, the Authorized Organizational Representative hereby certifies that the

organization will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC § 2000d), Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972 (20 USC §§ 1681 et seq.), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC § 794), the Age

Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 USC §§ 6101 et seq.) and all regulations and policies issued by NSF pursuant to

these statutes.

To that end, in accordance with the above-referenced nondiscrimination statutes, and NSF’s implementing

regulations and policies, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex,

disability, or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to

discrimination under any program or activity for which the Proposer receives Federal financial assistance from

the Foundation; and HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT it will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate

this agreement.

If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid of Federal financial assistance

extended to the Proposer by the Foundation, this Certification shall obligate the Proposer, or in the case of any

transfer of such property, the transferee, for the period during which the real property or structure is used for a

purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of

similar services or benefits. If any personal property is so provided, this Certification shall obligate the Proposer

for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property. In all other cases, this Certification

shall obligate the Proposer for the period during which the Federal financial assistance is extended to it by the

Foundation.

THIS CERTIFICATION is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants,

cooperative agreements, loans, contracts, property, discounts or other Federal financial assistance extended

after the date hereof to the Proposer by the Foundation, including installment payments after such date on

account of applications for Federal financial assistance which were approved before such date. The Proposer

recognizes and agrees that such Federal financial assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations

and agreements made in this Certification, and that the United States shall have the right to seek judicial

enforcement of this Certification. This Certification is binding on the Proposer, its successors, transferees, and

assignees.

Grant Proposal Guide II-44 NSF 15-1

Exhibit II-7: Definitions of Categories of Personnel

The personnel categories listed on parts A and B of the Proposal Budget are defined as follows:

A. Senior Personnel

1. (co) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR (PI/PD) means the individual(s) designated by

the proposer, and approved by NSF, who will be responsible for the scientific or technical direction of the

project. NSF does not infer any distinction in scientific stature among multiple PIs, whether referred to as

PI or co-PI. If more than one, the first one listed will serve as the contact PI, with whom all

communications between NSF program officials and the project relating to the scientific, technical, and

budgetary aspects of the project should take place. The PI and any identified co-PIs, however, will be

jointly responsible for submission of the requisite project reports. The term "Principal Investigator"

generally is used in research projects, while the term "Project Director" generally is used in centers, large

facilities, and other projects. For purposes of this Guide, PI/co-PI is interchangeable with PD/co-PD.

2. Faculty Associate (faculty member) -- an individual other than the Principal Investigator(s) considered by

the performing institution to be a member of its faculty or who holds an appointment as a faculty member

at another institution, and who will participate in the project being supported.

B. Other Personnel

1. Postdoctoral (Scholar, Fellow, or Other Postdoctoral Position) -- An individual who has received a

doctoral degree (or equivalent) and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced

training to enhance the professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her

chosen career path. Postdoctoral scholars not identified under Senior Personnel above should be listed

as Other Personnel.

2. Other Professional -- a person who may or may not hold a doctoral degree or its equivalent, who is

considered a professional and is not reported as a Principal Investigator, faculty associate, postdoctoral

scholar or student. Examples of persons included in this category are doctoral associates not reported

under B1, professional technicians, physicians, veterinarians, system experts, computer programmers

and design engineers.

3. Graduate Student (research assistant) -- a part-time or full-time student working on the project in a

research capacity who holds at least a bachelor’s degree and is enrolled in a degree program leading to

an advanced degree.

4. Undergraduate Student -- a student who is enrolled in a degree program (part-time or full-time) leading to

a bachelor’s or associate’s degree.

5. & 6. These categories include persons working on the project in a non-research capacity, such as

secretaries, clerk-typists, draftsmen, animal caretakers, electricians and custodial personnel regardless

of whether they hold a degree or are involved in degree work.

Any personnel category for which NSF funds are requested must indicate, in the parentheses provided on the

Proposal Budget, the number of persons expected to receive some support from those funds and, where called

for in the budget format, person-months to the nearest tenth.

Grant Proposal Guide III-1 NSF 15-1

Chapter III: NSF Proposal Processing and Review

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program and are assessed to ensure that they

meet NSF compliance requirements. All compliant proposals are then 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. 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. 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 as GPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation’s merit review process is available on the NSF website at:

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.

Proposal review is one step in the NSF program planning and implementation process. Embedded in this

process are core strategies that are fundamental to the fulfillment of NSF’s mission. More information about

NSF’s mission and strategies can be found in Investing in Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation’s

Future: NSF Strategic Plan for 2014-2018. NSF’s mission is particularly well-implemented through the

integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

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

Grant Proposal Guide III-2 NSF 15-1

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 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. (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 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?

B. Selection of Reviewers

The NSF guidelines for the selection of reviewers are designed to ensure selection of experts who can give

program officers the proper information needed to make a recommendation in accordance with the NSB-

approved criteria for selection of projects. Optimally, reviewers should have:

Grant Proposal Guide III-3 NSF 15-1

1. Special knowledge of the science and engineering subfields involved in the proposals to be reviewed to

evaluate competence, intellectual merit, and utility of the proposed activity. Within reasonable limits,

reviewers’ fields of specialty should be complementary within a reviewer group.

2. Broader or more generalized knowledge of the science and engineering subfields involved in the

proposals to be reviewed to evaluate the broader impacts of the proposed activity. Reviewers with

broad expertise are required for proposals involving substantial size or complexity, broad disciplinary or

multidisciplinary content, or significant national or international implications.

3. Broad knowledge of the infrastructure of the science and engineering enterprise, and its educational

activities, to evaluate contributions to societal goals, scientific and engineering personnel, and

distribution of resources to organizations and geographical areas.

4. To the extent possible, diverse representation within the review group. The goal is to achieve a balance

among various characteristics. Important factors to consider include: type of organization represented,

reviewer diversity, age distribution and geographic balance.

C. Proposal File Updates

It is the responsibility of the proposing organization to thoroughly review each proposal prior to submission. On

occasion, however, a problem is identified with a portion of the proposal after the proposal has been submitted

electronically to NSF.

The FastLane Proposal File Update Module allows the organization to request the replacement of files or

revision of other Proposal Attributes, associated with a previously submitted proposal. (Note: The FastLane

Proposal File Update module must not be used for submission of revised budgets. All budgetary revisions must

be submitted through use of the FastLane Revised Proposal Budget Module. See Section D. below for further

information.) A request for a proposal file update must be submitted by an individual who is authorized to

submit proposals on behalf of the organization, and electronically signed by the Authorized Organizational

Representative (AOR). An update request must contain a justification that addresses:

1. why the changes or file replacements are being requested; and

2. any differences between the original and proposed replacement files.

A request for a proposal file update automatically will be accepted if submitted prior to:

• the deadline date;

• initiation of external peer review in cases when a target date is utilized; 39 and

• initiation of external peer review in the case of an unsolicited proposal.

A request for a proposal file update after the timeframes specified above will require acceptance by the

cognizant NSF Program Officer. Such requests shall be submitted only to correct a technical problem with the

proposal (i.e., formatting or print problems). Changes in the content of the proposal should not be requested

after the timeframes specified above. When a request is accepted, the proposed files or revisions to proposal

attributes will immediately replace the existing files and become part of the official proposal.

PIs can access the Proposal File Update Module via the "Proposal Functions" section of FastLane. Authorized

individuals in the organization’s Sponsored Projects Office (or equivalent) can initiate or review requests for

proposal file updates using the "Submit Proposals/Supplements/File Updates/Withdrawals" Module via the

FastLane "Research Administration Functions."40

39The status of a proposal may be found via the "Proposal Functions" section of FastLane.

40Detailed instructions on submitting proposer-initiated proposal file updates are available on the FastLane website at

https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/documents/pfu/pfu.jsp.

Grant Proposal Guide III-4 NSF 15-1

NSF will consider only one request for a proposal file update per proposal at a time. It is anticipated that it will

be a rare occurrence for more than one file update request to be submitted for a proposal.

D. Revisions to Proposals Made During the Review Process

In the event of a significant development (e.g., research findings, changed circumstances, unavailability of PI or

other senior personnel, etc.) that might materially affect the outcome of the review of a pending proposal, the

proposer must contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer to discuss the issue. Submitting additional

information must not be used as a means of circumventing page limitations or stated deadlines.

Before recommending whether or not NSF should support a particular project, the cognizant NSF Program

Officer may, subject to certain constraints outlined below, engage in discussions with the proposing PIs.

Negotiating budgets generally involves discussing a lower or higher amount of total support for the proposed

project. The cognizant NSF Program Officer may suggest reducing or eliminating costs for specific budget

items that are clearly unnecessary or unreasonable for the activities to be undertaken, especially when the

review process supports such changes; however, this would generally not include faculty salaries, salary rates,

fringe benefits, or tuition. Note: indirect cost rates are not subject to negotiation. The NSF Program Officer may

discuss with PIs the “bottom line” award amount, i.e., the total NSF funding that will be recommended for a

project. NSF Program Officers may not renegotiate cost sharing or other organizational commitments.

When such discussions result in a budget reduction of 10% or more from the amount originally proposed, a

corresponding reduction should be made in the scope of the project. Proposers must use the FastLane Revised

Proposal Budget Module to submit this information.41 A revised proposal budget also must include a Budget

Impact Statement that describes the impact of the budget reduction on the scope of the project.

Revised proposal budgets must be electronically signed by the AOR.

E. Funding 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. Normally, final programmatic approval is at the Division/Office level. Because of the

large volume of proposals, this review and consideration process may take up to six months. Large or

particularly complex proposals may require additional review and processing time.

Should a proposal be recommended for award, the PI may be contacted by the NSF Program Officer for

assistance in preparation of the public award abstract and its title. An NSF award abstract, with its title, is an

NSF document that describes the project and justifies the expenditure of Federal funds.

Note that a recommendation for an award by an NSF Program Officer does not constitute approval or obligation

of Federal funds. Proposers are cautioned that only an appointed NSF 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 or the Government should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions

with an NSF Program Officer. A PI 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 its

own risk.

F. NSF’s Risk Management Framework and the Decision to Award or Decline

Proposals

If the program recommendation is for an award and final Division/Office or other programmatic approval is

obtained, then the recommendation goes to the Division of Grants and Agreements (DGA) or the Division of

Acquisition and Cooperative Support (DACS) for review of business, financial and policy implications. After the

completion of this review, a final decision will be made to fund or decline the proposal.

41 Note: All preaward budgetary revisions must be submitted through use of the Revised Budget Module in Fastlane.

Grant Proposal Guide III-5 NSF 15-1

1. NSF Risk Management Framework. Consistent with 2 CFR § 200.205, NSF’s risk-based framework

evaluates the risks posed by proposers prior to issuance of an NSF award. This framework includes, but is not

limited to, the following:

• conducting pre-award financial and administrative reviews for all proposers recommended for award

that have not received NSF funding in the last five years, with particular focus on proposers whose cumulative

NSF funding would amount to $200,000 or more;

• conducting pre-award financial and administrative reviews for all proposers recommended for Phase II

funding under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)

program;

• considering the proposer’s record of how it has managed past and current Federal awards, and

leveraging NSF systems to identify any ongoing issues that need to be considered before proceeding with future

awards;

• considering the status of corrective actions necessary to address findings or concerns noted in audits,

desk reviews, site visits, or other monitoring activities of the proposer’s past and current Federal awards; and

• ensuring that NSF conducts review of information available through any OMB-designated repositories

and that no awards are made to proposers that are currently suspended or debarred or otherwise ineligible for

participation in Federal programs or activities.

DGA and DACS generally make the decision to award or decline proposals within 30 days after the program

Division/Office makes its recommendation. Proposals from organizations that have not received an NSF award

within the preceding five years, or involving special situations (such as coordination with another Federal agency

or a private funding source), cooperative agreements, or unusual arrangements may require additional review

and processing time.

2. Process to Appeal NSF’s Decision to Decline a Proposal for Financial or Administrative Reasons

a. Background

A proposer who has been declined for an NSF award for reasons related to NSF’s pre-award financial and

administrative reviews will be afforded the opportunity to discuss the decline decision with the cognizant NSF

Grants and Agreements Officer or Branch Chief in DGA or DACS. If, after obtaining further clarification from the

cognizant NSF Grants and Agreements Officer or Branch Chief in DGA or DACS, the proposer believes that

NSF made a substantive or procedural error in arriving at its decision to decline an award, the proposer may

submit a request for review to the cognizant Division Director of DGA or DACS. The decision made by the

cognizant Division Director of DGA or DACS is final.

Award of NSF assistance is discretionary. A formal hearing, therefore, is not provided.

b. Applicability

GPG Chapter III.F.2.c contains the process by which proposers may appeal a DGA or DACS Branch Chief’s

decision to decline an NSF award arising from NSF’s pre-award financial and administrative reviews. This

process does not apply to decisions to return or decline a proposal for any other reason.

Proposals declined for administrative or financial reasons are not eligible for reconsideration under GPG

Chapter IV.D.

c. Procedures

1. Proposers who are declined for an NSF award for financial or administrative reasons will be identified as

such in the declination notice. A proposer who disagrees with NSF’s decision should first contact the cognizant

NSF Grants and Agreements Officer or Branch Chief in DGA or DACS, who will afford the proposer an informal

opportunity to obtain further clarification.

Grant Proposal Guide III-6 NSF 15-1

2. If dissatisfied with the explanation provided by the cognizant NSF Grants and Agreements Officer or

Branch Chief in DGA or DACS, the proposing organization’s Authorized Organizational Representative may

submit a request for review to the cognizant Division Director of DGA or DACS. The letter must be addressed to

the Division Director, Division of Grants and Agreements (DGA), or the Division Director, Division of Acquisition

and Cooperative Support (DACS) as appropriate, and must be received by the Foundation within 30 days after

the date of the declination notice. The time for filing a request for review is strictly enforced and no extensions

for the purpose of preparing it will be granted.

3. The request for review need not follow any prescribed format. However, it must contain a full statement

of the proposer’s position with respect to the disputed matter, as well as the facts and reasons supporting the

proposer’s position that the declination was unwarranted. The request may address any errors made in the

financial and administrative review process. NSF will not consider any new information that would not have

been available at the time the decision to decline was made. Therefore, new information presented in relation

to the proposer’s financial stability or the quality of its management systems will not be considered.

4. The Division Director, DGA or DACS, will review or designate one or more individuals to review the

matter. In no case will the review be undertaken by any individual involved with the decline decision. The

reviewing official(s) may request additional information from the proposer, but only information that would have

been available at the time the decision to decline was made will be considered.

5. The designated reviewing official(s) will, within 30 days of NSF’s receipt of the request for review,

forward a report to the Division Director, DGA or DACS or his/her designee for a final written decision for the

agency. The Division Director, DGA or DACS or his/her designee will communicate the decision in writing to the

proposer, normally within 15 days of receipt of the report, unless otherwise specified by NSF. The decision

made by the Division Director, DGA or DACS, is final.

G. Review Information Provided to PI

When a decision has been made (whether an award or a declination), the following information is released

electronically to the PI:

• description of the context in which the proposal was reviewed;

• copies of all reviews used in the decision (with any reviewer-identifying information redacted);

• copy of panel summary, if the proposal was reviewed by a panel at any point in the process; and/or

• site-visit reports, if applicable.

In addition, if not otherwise provided in the panel summary, the PI is provided an explanation (written or

telephoned) of the basis for the declination. A PI also may request and obtain any other releasable material in

NSF's file on his/her proposal. Everything in the file, except information that identifies either reviewers or other

pending or declined proposals is usually releasable to the PI.

Reviews are made available directly to the PI, to provide feedback for the purpose of improving proposed

research and research methods, and to assist in preparation of future proposals. They are not intended for any

other purpose.

H. Release of Grantee Proposal Information

A proposal that results in an NSF award will be available to the public on request, except for privileged

information or material that is personal, proprietary or otherwise exempt from disclosure under law. Appropriate

labeling in the proposal aids identification of what may be specifically exempt. (See GPG Chapter I.D.3) Such

information will be withheld from public disclosure to the extent permitted by law, including the Freedom of

Information Act. Without assuming any liability for inadvertent disclosure, NSF will seek to limit disclosure of

Grant Proposal Guide III-7 NSF 15-1

such information to its employees and to outside reviewers when necessary for merit review of the proposal, or

as otherwise authorized by law.

Portions of proposals resulting in grants that contain descriptions of inventions in which either the Government

or the grantee owns a right, title, or interest (including a non-exclusive license) will not normally be made

available to the public until a reasonable time has been allowed for filing patent applications. NSF will notify the

grantee of receipt of requests for copies of funded proposals so the grantee may advise NSF of such inventions

described, or other confidential, commercial or proprietary information contained in the proposal.

Exhibit III-1: NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline

Grant Proposal Guide IV-1 NSF 15-1

Chapter IV: Non-Award Decisions and Transactions

A. Proposal Withdrawal

A proposal may be withdrawn at any time before a funding recommendation is made by the cognizant NSF

Program Officer. Proposals must be electronically withdrawn via the FastLane Electronic Proposal Withdrawal

System. This module in FastLane automates the proposal withdrawal process and provides a mechanism that

will help organizations to more effectively manage their proposal portfolio, as well as to help eliminate the

submission of duplicate proposals to NSF. The Electronic Proposal Withdrawal System includes three

processes:

• Principal Investigator’s Proposal Withdrawal allows a PI to initiate a proposal withdrawal and forward it

to the organization’s Sponsored Projects Office (or equivalent) for submission to NSF.

• Sponsored Projects Office (SPO) Proposal Withdrawal allows an authorized individual in the

organization’s Sponsored Projects Office (or equivalent) to initiate a proposal withdrawal for submission

to NSF.

• Proposal Submission Duplicate Withdrawal prevents a SPO official from submitting a new proposal if a

duplicate (a proposal from the same organization with the same title and same PI and co-PIs) already

has been submitted to NSF within the last two weeks prior to the current submission. If these conditions

are met, the system will allow the authorized SPO official to either withdraw the previous duplicate and

then proceed with the submission of the new proposal, or to modify the new proposal so it is different

from the previous proposal.

Principal Investigators can access the Proposal Withdrawal utility via the "Submitted Proposals" screen under

the FastLane Proposal Preparation Functions Module. Authorized individuals42 in the organization’s Sponsored

Projects Office (or equivalent) can initiate or review a proposal withdrawal using the "Submit

Proposals/Supplements/File Updates/Withdrawals" Module via the FastLane "Research Administration

Functions".43

In cases where NSF already has made a funding decision, proposals will not be permitted to be withdrawn via

the electronic proposal withdrawal system. When a PI or SPO representative attempts to prepare a proposal

withdrawal for such a proposal, a message will be displayed to contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer for

further assistance.

NSF must be notified if any funding for the proposed project is received from another source or sponsor. If it is

brought to NSF's attention that funding for a proposal to NSF has been accepted from another sponsor, NSF will

send a withdrawal confirmation to the PI and the SPO without waiting for the official withdrawal notification.

If a proposal withdrawal is submitted for a proposal that is part of a collaborative effort, regardless of whether

the organization is the lead or non-lead, the electronic proposal withdrawal system will withdraw that proposal

along with the other remaining proposals that are identified as part of the collaborative effort. If the remaining

organizations in the collaborative determine that the project can still proceed, a new collaborative proposal must

be submitted.

Copies of reviews received by NSF before a proposal is withdrawn will be provided to the PI. NSF provides

notice of a withdrawal, return, declination, or reconsideration to both the PI and the SPO.

42 Authorized Organizational Representatives with “submit” permission also can initiate a proposal withdrawal.

43Detailed instructions on the Electronic Proposal Withdrawal System are available on the FastLane website at:

https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/documents/epw/epw.jsp.

Grant Proposal Guide IV-2 NSF 15-1

B. Proposal Not Accepted or Returned Without Review

A proposal will not be accepted44 or will be returned without review by NSF for the following reasons.

The proposal:

1. is inappropriate for funding by the National Science Foundation (see GPG Chapter I.B);

2. is submitted with insufficient lead-time before the activity is scheduled to begin;

3. is a full proposal that was submitted by a proposer that has received a “not invited” response to the

submission of a preliminary proposal (see GPG Chapter I.D.2.a);

4. is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under consideration by NSF from the

same submitter (see GPG Chapter I.G.2);

5. does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting instructions,

and electronic submission, as specified in the Grant Proposal Guide (see GPG Chapters II.A, II.B, and

II.C), the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, or program solicitation;

6. is not responsive to the NSF funding opportunity;

7. does not meet an announced proposal deadline date;

8. was previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised (see GPG Chapter IV.E);

9. duplicates another proposal that was already awarded; and/or

10. does not contain each of the required sections of the proposal, as described in GPG Chapter II.C.2.

C. Declinations

A PI whose proposal for NSF support has been declined will receive information and an explanation of the

reason(s) for declination along with copies of the reviews considered in making the decision. If that explanation

does not satisfy the PI, he/she may request additional information from the cognizant NSF Program Officer or

Division Director. See GPG Chapter III.G for additional information.

PIs and co-PIs may access review information electronically from NSF after the decision has received the

concurrence of the cognizant NSF Division Director, when all the review information has been released for their

proposal.

D. Reconsideration

1. Overview

a. A proposer whose proposal has been declined may ask the cognizant NSF Program Officer or the

cognizant NSF Division Director for information over and above the explanatory materials received with the

declination notice. If the PI/PD is not satisfied that the proposal was fairly handled and reasonably reviewed,

he/she may request reconsideration by the responsible Assistant Director (AD) or Office Head. An organization

(or an unaffiliated PI/PD) still not satisfied after reconsideration by the responsible AD/Office Head may request

further reconsideration by the Deputy Director of the Foundation. The decision made by the Deputy Director is

final.

b. If a proposal has been declined after review by the NSB, only an explanation will be available.

c. The aim of any reconsideration is to ensure that NSF’s review has been fair and reasonable, both

substantively and procedurally. The scientific and technical merits may be examined within the context of

budget availability and program priorities. Reconsideration also may address any procedural errors in peer

review or other aspects of proposal review, including unaccounted-for conflict of interests or inappropriate

consideration of records, information or rumor.

d. Award of NSF assistance is discretionary and reconsideration is not an adversarial process. A formal

hearing, therefore, is not provided. Because factors such as program budget and priorities factor into the

decision on a proposal, NSF cannot ensure proposers that reconsideration will result in an award even if error is

established in connection with the initial review.

44 Proposal Not Accepted is defined as FastLane will not permit submission of the proposal.

Grant Proposal Guide IV-3 NSF 15-1

e. No revisions made to the proposal after declination will be considered in connection with the original

proposal. A substantially revised proposal, however, may be submitted for review as a new proposal under

standard procedures. NSF reserves the right to return without review a proposal that is substantially the same

as one that was previously reviewed and declined whether or not a request for reconsideration was made.

2. Applicability

NSF's reconsideration process is available to individuals and organizations concerning proposals for grant

funding. It does not apply to:

a. “discourage” (i.e., non-binding) decisions resulting from submission of a preliminary proposal;

b. proposals for:

(1) fellowships;

(2) travel grants;

(3) Rapid Response Grants;

(4) EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER); or

(5) Phase I proposals submitted under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.

c. proposals returned without review by NSF for failure to:

(1) be submitted with sufficient lead time before the activity is to begin;

(2) meet an announced proposal deadline date; or

(3) meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting instructions, and

electronic submission, as specified in the Grant Proposal Guide, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, or

program solicitation.

3. Reconsideration Process

The following paragraphs highlight the various stages of the NSF Reconsideration Process, including the

necessary procedural aspects of each stage of the process.

a. Explanations by the NSF Program Officer or Division Director

When a proposal is declined, the PI/PD receives verbatim but unattributed copies of any ad hoc reviews and the

panel summary (if applicable), a description of how the proposal was reviewed, and, if not otherwise provided in

the panel summary, an explanation (written or telephoned) of the basis for the declination. A returned proposal

also will be accompanied by an explanation. A PI/PD who is considering asking for reconsideration should first

contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer or Division Director, who will afford the PI/PD an informal

opportunity to seek further clarification.

b. Reconsideration by the Cognizant NSF Assistant Director

(1) If dissatisfied with the explanation provided by the NSF Program Officer or Division Director, the PI/PD

may request in writing that NSF reconsider its action. Such a request will be considered only if the PI/PD has

first sought and obtained further clarification from the cognizant NSF Program Officer or Division Director, and

only if the request is received by the Foundation within 90 days after the declination or the return. The request

should be addressed to the AD/Office Head for the Directorate or Office that handled the proposal and should

explain why the PI/PD believes that the declination or return was unwarranted.

(2) The AD/Office Head will reconsider the record to determine whether NSF’s review of the declined

proposal was fair and reasonable, substantively and procedurally, taking into account availability of funds and

the policies and priorities of the program and NSF. In the case of a returned proposal, the record will be

reviewed to determine whether the proposed project was inappropriate for NSF consideration. The AD/Office

Head may request additional information from the PI/PD and may obtain additional reviews. If additional

reviews are sought, they are subject to standard review procedures (e.g., instructions must be provided to

Grant Proposal Guide IV-4 NSF 15-1

reviewers and conflicts-of-interest policies must be followed). The AD/Office Head may conduct the

reconsideration personally or may designate another NSF official who had no part in the initial review to do so.

As used here, “AD/Office Head” includes such a designated official.

(3) Within 45 days after the date of the request, the AD/Office Head will furnish the results of the

reconsideration, in writing, to the PI/PD. If results cannot be furnished within 45 days, the AD/Office Head will

send the PI/PD a written explanation of the need for more time, indicating the date when the results can be

expected. If the AD/Office Head reaffirms the declination or return, he/she will inform the PI/PD that the PI/PD’s

organization may obtain further reconsideration by the Deputy Director of NSF as provided below.

c. Further Reconsideration by the NSF Deputy Director

(1) Within 60 days after the AD/Office Head has notified the PI/PD of the results of the reconsideration, the

proposing organization or an unaffiliated PI/PD may request further reconsideration by the Deputy Director of

NSF.

(2) A request for further reconsideration need not be in any particular format, but it must be in writing, and

must be signed by the organization’s president or other chief executive officer and by the PI/PD. For

declinations, it should explain why the organization believes that an error may have occurred in the initial

evaluation and why it is not entirely satisfied with the reconsideration by the responsible AD/Office Head. For

returned proposals, it should explain why the organization believes that an error may have occurred in the initial

determination that the proposal was inappropriate for NSF consideration.

(3) The Deputy Director will review the request for further reconsideration and the record of earlier NSF

actions, including the original review and the reconsideration by the AD/Office Head, to determine whether

NSF’s review of the declined proposal was fair and reasonable, or, in the case of a returned proposal, whether

the proposed project was inappropriate for NSF consideration. The Deputy Director may request additional

information from the PI/PD or the proposing organization and may obtain additional reviews. If additional

reviews are sought, they are subject to standard review procedures (e.g., instructions must be provided to

reviewers and conflicts-of-interest policies must be followed).

(4) The Deputy Director may conduct the further reconsideration personally or may designate another NSF

official who had no part in the initial evaluation of the proposal or the earlier reconsideration to do so. As used

here, “Deputy Director” includes such a designated official.

(5) Within 30 days after a request for further reconsideration is received at NSF, the Deputy Director will

furnish the results of the further reconsideration, in writing, to the organization. If results cannot be furnished

within 30 days, the Deputy Director will send the organization a written explanation of the need for more time,

indicating the date when the results can be expected.

(6) The decision made by the Deputy Director is final.

E. Resubmission

A declined proposal may be resubmitted, but only after it has undergone substantial revision. A resubmitted

proposal that has not clearly taken into account the major comments or concerns resulting from the prior NSF

review may be returned without review. The Foundation will treat the revised proposal as a new proposal,

subject to the standard review procedures.

Grant Proposal Guide V-1 NSF 15-1

Chapter V: Renewal Proposals

A renewal proposal is a request for additional funding for a support period subsequent to that provided by a

standard or continuing grant. A renewal proposal competes with all other proposals and must be developed as

fully as though the proposer is applying for the first time. Renewal proposals must be submitted at least six

months before additional funding is required or consistent with an established deadline, target date or

submission window. In preparing a renewal proposal, proposers should assume that reviewers will not have

access to previously submitted versions of the proposal. Please note the National Science Board strongly

endorses the principle that all expiring awards are to be recompeted.45

All proposals for renewed support of research projects, from academic institutions only, must include information

on human resources development at the postdoctoral, graduate and undergraduate levels as part of Results

from Prior NSF Support.46 This may involve, but is not limited to, the role of research in student training, course

preparation and seminars (particularly for undergraduates). Special accomplishments in the development of

professional scientists and engineers from underrepresented groups should be described. Graduate students

who participated in the research should be identified by name. This requirement does not apply to non-

academic organizations.

PIs are encouraged to discuss renewal proposals with the program prior to submission of a proposal. Unless

precluded by individual program requirements, PIs may choose either of the following two formats for

preparation of a renewal proposal.

A. Traditional Renewal. The “traditional” renewal proposal is developed as fully as though the proposer

were applying for the first time. It covers all the information required in a proposal for a new project, including

Results from Prior NSF Support. The 15-page limitation on the Project Description applies.

B. Accomplishment-Based Renewal. In an "Accomplishment-Based Renewal" (ABR) proposal, the

Project Description (including the Results from Prior NSF Support) is replaced with the following items:

1. copies of no more than six reprints47 of publications resulting from the research supported by NSF

(including research supported by other sources that is closely related to the NSF-supported research) during the

preceding three to five year period. Of the six publications, two preprints (accepted for publication) may be

included;

2. information on human resources development at the postdoctoral, graduate and undergraduate levels;

and

3. a brief summary (not to exceed four pages) of plans for the proposed support period.

All other information required for NSF proposal submission remains the same.

It must be clearly indicated in the proposal that it is an ABR submission and the box for "Accomplishment-Based

Renewal" must be checked on the Cover Sheet. ABR proposals may not be submitted for consecutive

renewals.

PIs are advised that the ABR is a special type of renewal proposal appropriate only for an investigator who has

made significant contributions, over a number of years, in the area of research addressed by the proposal.

Investigators are strongly urged to contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer prior to developing a proposal

using this format.

Descriptions of other forms of additional funding support, including continuing grants and supplemental funding

requests, are contained in AAG Chapter I.

45 Reference National Science Board Resolution (NSB 08-12) entitled, Competition and Recompetition of NSF Awards.

46This requirement applies to both types of renewal proposals: Traditional Renewal and Accomplishment-Based Renewal.

47Reprints should be provided as supplementary documentation and should be submitted electronically via the Proposal

Preparation Module in the FastLane System.

Grant Proposal Guide NSF 15-1

Subject Index

GPG SECTION

Accomplishment-Based Renewal ..................................................................................... II.C.2.d(vi)

Administrative and Clerical Salaries and Wages ............................................................ II.C.2.g(i)(b)

Advanced Visualization Resources ......................................................................................... II.D.13

Age Discrimination ............................................................................................................ Exhibit II-6

Alcoholic Beverages ......................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(xii)

Allowability of Costs ............................................................................................................... II.C.2.g

Animal Welfare ........................................................................................... II.C.2.j, II.D.7, Exhibit II-1

Antarctic Proposals ........................................................................................................ I.E.7, II.C.2.j

Anthropogenic Disasters ..................................................................................................... I.F, II.D.1

Anti-discrimination Statutes ............................................................................................... Exhibit II-6

Appeal Process for Proposals Declined for Financial or Administrative Reasons… ................ III.F.2

Appendices ................................................................................................................... II.C.2, II.C.2.k

Appointments ............................................................................................................. II.C.2.f, II.C.2.g

Authorized Organizational Representative .................................................. I.G.2, II.C.1.e, III.C, III.D

Award Abstract… ........................................................................................................................ III.E

Award Recommendations ............................................................................. Chapter III, Exhibit III-1

Awardee Organization ............................................................................................................ II.C.2.a

Beginning Investigator .................................................................................................. I.G.2, II.C.2.a

Biographical Sketch(es) .............................................................. II.C.2.f, II.D.5.b, II.D.6, Exhibit II-1

Biological Sciences Directorate Duplicate Proposal Policy ........................................................ I.G.2

Broader Impacts .......................................................................................................................... III.A

Budget ................................................................................................................................... II.C.2.g

Certifications .................................................................................... I.G.2, II.C.1, II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-1

Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Proposer ........................... II.C.1.e

Conflict of Interest .................................................................................. II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-2

Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements ..................................... Exhibit II-5

Criminal Conviction ................................................................................................... II.C.1.e

Debarment or Suspension...................................................................... II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-4

Drug-Free Workplace ............................................................................. II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-3

Federal Tax Obligations ............................................................................................ II.C.1.e

Flood Hazard Insurance ............................................................................................ II.C.1.e

Lobbying ................................................................................................. II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-5

Nondiscrimination ................................................................................... II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-6

Organizational Support .............................................................................................. II.C.1.e

Responsible Conduct of Research……. .................................................................. .II.C.1.e

Unpaid Federal Tax Liability ...................................................................................... II.C.1.e

Civil Rights Act of 1964 ..................................................................................................... Exhibit II-6

Closure of NSF ............................................................................................................................... I.F

Co-Editors......................................................................................................................... II.C.2.f(i)(e)

Coffee Breaks and Meals ............................................................................................. II.C.2.g(xii)(b)

Collaborative Arrangements .................................................................... II.C.2.g(vi)(e),II.C.2.j, II.D.5

Collaborative Proposals ................................................................................................... II.D.5, IV.A

Submission of a collaborative proposal from one organization................................. II.D.5.a

Submission of a collaborative proposal from multiple organizations ........................ II.D.5.b

Collaborators ....................................................................................................... II.C.2f(i)(e), II.D.5.a

Colleges ................................................................................................ I.E, II.C.2.g(i)(a), II.C.2.g(viii)

Grant Proposal Guide NSF 15-1

Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects ............................................................... II.D.8

Computer Services ..................................................................................... II.C.2.g(vi), II.C.2.g(vi)(d)

Computing Devices ....................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(vi)(a)

Conferences ......................................................... …I.B, I.G.2, II.C.2.g(iv), II.C.2.g(v), II.D.9, II.D.10

Confidential Budgetary Information ................................................................................. II.C.2.g(i)(d)

Conflicts of Interest (COIs) .............................................................................. I.D.1, II.C.1.c, II.C.1.e

Potentially Disqualifying COIs .............................................................................. Exhibit II-2

Consultant Services ................................................................................... II.C.2.g(vi), II.C.2.g(vi)(c)

Contracts under Grants (Subawards) ............................................. II.C.2.g(vi)(e), II.D.4, Exhibit II-5

Cooperative Agreements ...................................................................... I.H, II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-5, III.E

Copies of Reviews ......................................................................................... III.G, IV.A, IV.C, IV.D.3

Cost Principles ....................................................................................................................... II.C.2.g

Cost Sharing ................................................................................ II.C.2.g(i), II.C.2.g(xi), II.C.2.i, III.D

Costs, Visa ..................................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(vi)(f)

Cover Sheet............................................. I.D.2, I.D.3, I.G.1, I.G.2, II.A, II.C.1.e, II.C.2.a, Exhibit II-1

Current and Pending Support................................................................ II.C.2.h, II.D.5.b, Exhibit II-1

Data Management Plans ................................................................ II.C.2.d(i), II.C.2.j, II.D.5.b, II.D.9

Data Storage ........................................................................................................................... II.D.13

Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) ................................................................. I.G.3, II.C.2a

Deadline Dates ............................................................................................................................ I.F.2

Dear Colleague Letters .............................................................................................................. I.C.1

Debarment and Suspension ................................................................................. II.C.1e, Exhibit II-4

Declination of Proposal .................................................................................... III.E., III.F, IV.C, IV.D

Decline for Financial or Administrative Reasons .......................................................................... III.F

Definitions of Categories of Personnel .............................................................................. Exhibit II-7

Dependent Care Travel Costs ........................................................................................... II.C.2.g(iv)

Deviation Authorization .............................................................. I.F, II.A, II.C.2d, II.C.2k, Exhibit II-1

Direct Costs ............................................................................................................................ II.C.2.g

Disasters (Natural or anthropogenic) .................................................................................. I.F, II.D.2

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF LLL) ......................................................... II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-1

Dissemination Costs ....................................................................................................... II.C.2g(vi)(b)

Dissemination of Research Results ............................................................................... II.C.2.d, III.A

Documentation Costs .................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(vi)(b)

Domestic Travel ............................................................................................................ II.C.2.g(iv)(b)

Duration Information ............................................................................................................... II.C.2.a

EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) ....................................................... II.D.2

Electronic Submission Requirements ..................................................... I.A, I.B, I.D, I.G.1, II.B, II.C

Encourage/Discourage Decisions ........................................................................................... I.D.2.b

Endangered Species ............................................................................................................... II.C.2.j

Entertainment Costs ..................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(xii)(a)

Environmental Impact .............................................................................................................. II.C.2.j

Equipment

Definition................................................................................................................ II.C.2g(iii)

General Purpose .................................................................................................. II.C.2.g(iii)

Proposals ..................................................................................................................... II.D.6

Special Purpose .................................................... II.C.2.g(iii), II.C.2.g(vi)(d), II.D.4.a, II.D.6

Executive Order

12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs ........................................... II.C.2.j

12770, Metric Usage in Federal Government Programs .............................................. I.D.3

Expendable Personal Property............................................................. see “Materials and Supplies”

Grant Proposal Guide NSF 15-1

Expenditures

Allowability of Costs ...................................................................................... II.C.2.g, II.D.10

Facilitation Award for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities .................................. II.C.2.j, II.D.4

Facilities and Administrative Costs (F&A) ................................... II.C.2.g(v), II.C.2.g(viii), II.C.2.g(ix)

Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources ............................................ II.C.2.i, II.D.5.b, Exhibit II-1

Faculty Associate, Definition ............................................................................................. Exhibit II-7

FastLane System ................................................................ I.A, I.G.1, II.B, II.C.1.e, IV.A, Chapter V

Proposal Preparation Module ............................................................ I.A, I.G.3, II.C.1, II.C.2

Federal Acquisition Regulation............................................................................................... II.C.2.g

Federal Agencies ............................................................ I.D.3, I.E.7, I.G.2, I.H, II.C.1.e, II.D.8, III.E

Federal Cost Principles (now consolidated in 2 CFR § 200, Subpart E) ............................... II.C.2.g

Federal Emergency Management Agency ............................................................................. II.C.1.e

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA)............................................... I.G.3

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) .......................................... I.E.7

Federal-wide Assurance ............................................................................................................ II.D.8

Fellowships .......................................................................................................... I.G.2, II.D.7, IV.D.2

Financial Disclosure ............................................................................................................... II.C.1.e

Flood Hazard Insurance ......................................................................................................... II.C.1.e

Fonts ...................................................................................................................... II.B, Exhibit II-1

Foreign Organizations ...................................................................................................... I.E.6, II.D.7

Foreign Projects ............................................................................................................ II.C.2.j, II.D.7

Foreign Travel ............................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(iv)(c)

For-profit Organizations .............................................................................................................. I.E.3

Fringe Benefits ........................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(ii), III.D

Full Proposal..................................................................................... I.D.1, I.D.2, I.D.3, II.C.2.a, IV.B

Funding Opportunities ..................................................................... I.A, I.B, I.C, I.C.4, I.G.1, II.C.2.a

Funding Recommendations .......................................................................... Chapter III, Exhibit III-1

General Purpose Equipment ................................................................................................... II.C.2.f

Graduate Advisors ............................................................................................................ II.C.2.f(i)(e)

Graduate Students .............................................................. I.E, II.C.2.g(i)(c), Exhibit II-7, Chapter V

Grant

Budget ....................................................................................................................... II.C.2.g

Financial Disclosure .................................................................................................. II.C.1.e

Renewal........................................................................... Exhibit II-1,Exhibit II-5, Chapter V

Grantee

Organization ....................................................................... I.D.3, II.C.a, II.C.2.g(vi), II.D.4.b

Share ....................................................................................................... see “Cost Sharing”

Grants and Agreements, Division of ............................................................................... I.E, I.H, III.F

Grants.gov ............................................................ I.A, I.B, I.G.1, II.A, II.B, II.C.2, II.D.3, IV.B, IV.D.2

Group Proposals ................................................................................................................ II.C.2.d(v)

Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................... II.C.2.j

High Performance Computing Resources ............................................................................... II.D.13

Historic Places ............................................................................................................ II.C.2.a, II.C.2.j

Human Subjects ....................................................... II.C.2.a, II.C.2.g (vi), II.C.2.j, II.D.8, Exhibit II-1

Grant Proposal Guide NSF 15-1

Ideas Lab ................................................................................................................................... II.D.3

Indirect Costs.................................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(viii)

Information About Principal Investigators/Project Directors and co-Principal Investigators/

co-Project Directors ................................................................................ II.C.1.a, Exhibit II-1

Intellectual Merit ............................. II.C.1.e, II.C.2.b, II.C.2.d, II.C.2.i, II.C.2.j, Exhibit II-1, III.A, III.B

Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs ................................................................ II.C.2.j

International

Activities ............................................................................................................ I.E.6, II.C.2.j

Projects.............................................................................................. See “Foreign Projects”

Travel................................................................................................................ II.C.2.g(iv)(c)

Travel Proposals ........................................................................................................ II.D.10

Investigator Financial Disclosure............................................................................................ II.C.1.e

Invite/Not Invite Decisions ....................................................................................................... I.D.2.a

Large Facilities Projects .................................................................................................. II.D.11, III.A

Letter of Intent ................................................................................................................... I.C.4, I.D.1

Letters of Collaboration …………………………………………………………….....II.C.2.d(iv), II.C.2.j

Letters of Support………………………………………………………………………………….…..II.C.2.j

List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include ................................. II.C.1.c, Exhibit II-1

Lobbying .............................................................................................................................................

Certification ............................................................................................ II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-5

Disclosure of Lobbying Activities ......................................... II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-1, Exhibit II-5

Local Governments .................................................................................................................... I.E.4

Major Research Facilities ........................................................................................................ II.D.12

Margin and Spacing Requirements ........................................................................... II.B, Exhibit II-1

Materials and Supplies ............................................................................... II.C.2.g(vi), II.C.2.g(vi)(a)

Meals and Coffee Breaks ............................................................................................. II.C.2.g(xii)(b)

Meetings and Conferences ...................................... I.B, I.G.2, II.C.2.g(iv), II.C.2.g(v), II.D.9, II.D.10

Mentoring................................................................................................................................ II.C.2.d

Merit Review Criteria .................... I.C.2, I.C.3, I.C.4, I.D.3, II.C.2.b, II.C.2.d, Exhibit II-1, Chapter III

Merit Review Principles .................................................................................................. Chapter III.A

Metric Conversion Act of 1975 ................................................................................................... I.D.3

Minority-Owned Business ....................................................................................................... II.C.2.a

Misconduct in Science ................................................................................................................ I.D.3

National Center for Atmospheric Research……………………………………………………….II.D.13

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ............................................................................. II.C.2.j

National Flood Insurance Act ................................................................................................. II.C.1.e

National Register of Historic Places ........................................................................................ II.C.2.j

National Science Board ................................... I.C.2, I.C.3, II.C.2.g(xi), III.A, III.B, IV.D.1, Chapter V

Natural Disasters ................................................................................................................. I.F, II.D.2

New Awardee ..................................................................................................................... Chapter II

Non-academic Organization ................................................................ I.E.2, II.C.2.g(i)(a), Chapter V

Non-award Decisions and Transactions ........................................................................... Chapter IV

Non-Discrimination Statutes ................................................................................ II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-6

Non-profit Organization .................................................................................................. I.E.2, II.D.10

NSF ID ....................................................................................................................................... I.G.4

NSF Prospective New Awardee Guide .............................................................................. Chapter II

Grant Proposal Guide NSF 15-1

NSF Unit of Consideration ...................................................................................................... II.C.2.a

NSF Update ................................................................................................................................... I.B

NSF-Use Only ........................................................................................................................... II.C.1

Other Direct Costs ............................................................................................................. II.C.2.g(vi)

Other Personnel ............................................................................................... II.C.2.f(ii), Exhibit II-7

Other Professional, Definition............................................................................................ Exhibit II-7

Overhead ............................................................................................................ see “Indirect Costs”

Page Formatting Instructions ....................................................................................................... II.B

Page Limitations ... II.C.2.b, II.C.2.d(ii), II.C.2.d(iii), II.C.2.d(v), II.C.2.e, II.C.2.f, II.C.2.g, II.C.2.j, II.D

................................................................................ Exhibit II-1, III.D, IV.B, IV.D.2, V.A, V.B

Pagination Instructions ................................................................................................................. II.B

Participant Support ................................................................................................. II.C.2.g(v), II.D.9

Person Months ............................................................................... II.C.2.g(i)(c), II.C.2.h, Exhibit II-7

Personnel, Definitions ....................................................................................................... Exhibit II-7

PI/PD

Compensation ........................................................................................................ II.C.2.g(i)

Definition............................................................................................................... Exhibit II-7

Information about PI/PDs and co-PIs/co-PDs ........................................ II.C.1.a, Exhibit II-1

Postdoctoral Associate ........................................................................................................ II.C.2.f(ii)

Postdoctoral Scholar ......................................................................................................... Exhibit II-7

Postdoctoral Sponsor ....................................................................................................... II.C.2.f(i)(e)

Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor ........................................................................................ II.C.2.f(i)(e)

Potentially Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest .................................................................... Exhibit II-2

Pre-Award Financial and Administrative Reviews… ................................................................. III.F.1

Preliminary Proposal ......................................................................................................... I.C.4, I.D.2

Preservation of Historic Places .................................................................................. II.C.2.a, II.C.2.j

Previous NSF Award .............................................................................................................. II.C.2.a

Principal Investigator (PI) ................................................................................... II. C.2.a, Exhibit II-7

PI Information ...................................................................... II.C.1.a, Exhibit II-1, Exhibit II-7

Principles, Federal Cost (now consolidated in 2 CFR § 200, Subpart E) ............................... II.C.2g

Privileged Information .................................................. I.D.3, II.C.1.d, II.C.2.g(i)(d), Exhibit II-1, III.H

Products ........................................................................................................................... II.C.2.f(i)(c)

Professional Preparation .................................................................................................. II.C.2.f(i)(a)

Professional Service Costs… ........................................................................................ II.C.2.g(vi)(c)

Program Announcement ............................................................................................................ I.C.3

Program Description ................................................................................................................... I.C.2

Program Solicitation ................................................................................................................... I.C.4

Project Description ................................................................. II.C.2.d, II.C.2.e, II.C.2.j, II.D.1, II.D.2,

...................................................... II.D.3, II.D.4, II.D.5, II.D.6, II.D.9, Exhibit II-1, Chapter V

Project/Performance Site Primary Location ........................................................................ …II.C.2.a

Project Summary ................................................................................................. II.C.2.b, Exhibit II-1

Property

Equipment ............................................................................................................ II.C.2.g(iii)

Materials and Supplies ..................................................................................... II.C.2.g(vi)(a)

Proposal

Certifications ....................................................................... I.G.2, II.C.1, II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-1

Conference ................................................................................................................... II.D.9

Contents .......................................................................................................................... II.C

Cover Sheet ......................................................................... II.C.2a, Exhibit II-1, Exhibit II-3

Declination of Proposals for Financial or Administrative Reasons.................................. III.F

Grant Proposal Guide NSF 15-1

Declinations ................................................................. III.E., III.F, IV.A, IV.C, IV.D.1, IV.D.3

Deviations .................................................................... I.F, II.A, II.C.2.d, II.C.2.k, Exhibit II-1

File Updates .......................................................................................................... III.C, IV.A

Format ............................................................................................................................. II.B

International Travel ..................................................................................................... II.D.10

Margin and Spacing Requirements .............................................................. II.B, Exhibit II-1

Not Accepted .................................................................................................................. IV.B

Page Formatting .............................................................................................................. II.B

Pagination Instructions .................................................................................................... II.B

Preparation Checklist ........................................................................................... Exhibit II-1

Processing ........................................................................................................................ I.H

Proposal & Award Process & Timeline ............................................................... Exhibit III-1

Receipt .......................................................................................................................... I.G.5

Reconsideration ............................................................................................................. IV.D

Renewed Support ..........................................................II.C.2.d(vi), II.D.1, II.D.2, Chapter V

Return without Review ................................................................................II.A, IV.B, IV.D.2

Revisions Made During the Review Process ................................................................. III.D

Sections ........................................................................................................................ II.C.2

Status ............................................................................................................................ I.G.5

Submission ....................................................... I.A, I.C, I.D, I.E, I.F, I.G, II.A, II.B, II.C, II.D,

.......................................................................................... Exhibit II-1, IV.A, IV.E, Chapter V

Symposia ...................................................................................................................... II.D.9

Time Sensitive Proposals ................................................................................................. I.H

Title ................................................................................................................... I.D.1, II.C.2.a

Withdrawal ........................................................................................................ Chapter IV.A

Proprietary Information ................................................ I.D.3, II.C.1.d, II.C.2.g(i)(d), Exhibit II-1, III.H

Prospective New Awardee Guide ...................................................................................... Chapter II

Publications ......................................................... II.C.2.d(iii), II.C.2.d(vi), II.C.2.f(i)(c), II.C.2.g(vi)(b)

Rapid Response Research Grants (RAPID) ............................................................................. II.D.1

Recompetition .................................................................................................................... Chapter V

Reconsideration of Proposals ..................................................................................................... IV.D

References Cited ....................................................................... II.C.2.e, II.C.2.j, II.D.5.b, Exhibit II-1

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ................................................................................................. Exhibit II-3

Release of Grantee Proposal Information ................................................................................... III.H

Renewed Support .............................................................................................................. II.C.2.d(vi)

Accomplishment-Based Renewal ................................................................................... V.B

Traditional Renewal ......................................................................................................... V.A

Research Assistant, Definition .......................................................................................... Exhibit II-7

Research Equipment ............................................................................................. II.C.2g.(iii), II.C.2.i

Research Experiences for Undergraduates ............................................................................ II.C.2.j

Research in Undergraduate Institutions .................................................................................. II.C.2.j

Research Involving Wildlife ....................................................................................................... II.D.7

Research Misconduct ................................................................................................................. I.D.3

Research Opportunity Awards ................................................................................................ II.C.2.j

Responsible Conduct of Research ......................................................................................... II.C.1.e

Resubmission of Proposal ........................................................................................................... IV.E

Results from Prior NSF Support ........................................................ II.C.2.d, Exhibit II-1, Chapter V

Return without Review ....................... II.A, II.B, II.C.2.b, II.C.2.j, Exhibit II-1, Exhibit III-1, IV.B, IV.E

Review Criteria ............................. I.C.2, I.C.3, I.C.4, I.D.3, II.C.2.b, II.C.2.d, Exhibit II-1, Chapter III

Reviews, Copies of ........................................................................................ III.G, IV.A, IV.C, IV.D.3

Revisions to Proposals (Made During the Review Process) ........................................... III.D, IV.D.1

Risk Management Framework ..................................................................................................... III.F

Grant Proposal Guide NSF 15-1

Salaries and Wages ............................................................................................................ II.C.2.g(i)

Administrative and Clerical Salaries and Wages Policy… ................................. II.C.2.g(i)(b)

Confidential Budgetary Information .................................................................... II.C.2.g(i)(d)

Policies ............................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(i)(a)

Procedures ......................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(i)(c)

Selection of Reviewers ................................................................................................................ III.B

Senior Personnel ................................................... II.C.2.f(i), II.C.2.h, II.D.5, Exhibit II-2, Exhibit II-7

Sex Discrimination ...................................................................................................... I.E, Exhibit II-6

SF LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities ........................................ II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-1, Exhibit II-5

Single Copy Documents .................................................................. I.D.3, II.C.1, II.C.1.e, Exhibit II-1

Small Business ..................................................................................................... I.E, II.C.2.a, IV.D.2

Special Exceptions (to Deadline Date Policy) ................................................................................ I.F

Special Guidelines ..................................................................................................... II.D, Exhibit II-1

Special Information ............................................................................................... II.C.2.j, Exhibit II-1

Sponsored Projects Office ....................................................... I.D.2, I.G.3, II.C.2a, II.C.2j, III.C, IV.A

State Governments .......................................................................... I.E, II.C.2.h, II.C.2.j, Exhibit II-3

Students ............................. I.E, II.C.2.f, II.C.2.g(i), II.D.4, II.D.9, Exhibit II-1, Exhibit II-7, Chapter V

Subawards............................................................... II.C.1.e, II.C.2.g(vi)(e), II.D.4, II.D.5, Exhibit II-5

Submission

Instructions ................................................................................................. I.G.2, Exhibit II-1

Windows ............................................................................................................................ I.F

Supplementary Documentation ............................... II.B.2, II.C.2, II.C.2.d, II.C.2.j, II.D.7, Exhibit II-1

Supplies .................................................................................................. see Materials and Supplies

Synergistic Activities ......................................................................................................... II.C.2.f(i)(d)

System for Award Management (SAM) ...................................................................................... I.G.3

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... II.C.2.c

Target Dates ................................................................................................................................... I.F

Temporary Dependent Care Travel Costs ........................................................................ II.C.2.g(iv)

Thesis Advisor .................................................................................................................. II.C.2.f(i)(e)

Title of Proposed Project ............................................................................................... I.D.1, II.C.2.a

Total Direct Costs ................................................................................................................... II.C.2.g

Traditional Renewal ...................................................................................................................... V.A

Travel Allowances

Dependent of Key Project Personnel ................................................................... II.C.2.g(iv)

Domestic............................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(iv)

Foreign ................................................................................................................. II.C.2.g(iv)

Unaffiliated Individuals ................................................................................................... I.E.5, IV.D.1

Unallowable Costs ............................................................................................................ II.C.2.g(xii)

Alcoholic Beverages ........................................................................................ II.C.2.g(xii)(c)

Entertainment Costs ........................................................................................ II.C.2.g(xii)(a)

Meals and Coffee Breaks ................................................................................ II.C.2.g(xii)(b)

Undergraduate Student, Definition .................................................................................... Exhibit II-7

Unfunded Collaborations ................................................................................................... II.C.2.d(iv)

Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) ................................................................................... II.C.2.d(ii)

Unit of Consideration .............................................................................................................. II.C.2.a

Universities ................................................................................................................................. I.E.1

U.S.-Flag Air Carriers ........................................................................................................ II.C.2.g(iv)

Grant Proposal Guide NSF 15-1

Vertebrate Animals ....................................................................... II.C.2.a, II.C.2.j, II.D.7, Exhibit II-1

Veterans Administration ................................................................................................................ I.E

Visa Costs ...................................................................................................................... II.C.2.g(vi)(f)

Visual Materials ...................................................................................................................... II.C.2.d

Wildlife Research ...................................................................................................................... II.D.7

Withdrawal of Proposal ............................................................................................................... IV.A

Woman-Owned Business ....................................................................................................... II.C.2.a

XSEDE… ................................................................................................................................. II.D.13

MC 32/12 Gpg Print

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation