Collaborative proposal nsf
Grant administration disputes and - table of document has been archived and replaced by - printable -submission proposal preparation and submission programs and funding ries of funding colleague etary or privileged may submit ries of sities and -profit, non-academic -profit and local liated n federal to submit l exceptions to nsfs deadline date to submit onic sion ements relating to data uniform numbering system (duns) numbers and the system for award management (sam). Preparation mance with instructions of the al pagination al margin and spacing copy ation about igators/project directors and co-principal investigators/ization to deviate from nsf proposal preparation of suggested reviewers not to etary or al ns of the t description (s from prior nsf support). As part of a mental funding requests orative sion of a single aneous submission of different als for als for conferences,Symposia and als for tation t for development of nsf t for development of major facilities and ts requiring high-performance computing resources, large amounts of data storage, or advanced visualization t ii-1: proposal preparation t ii-2 potentially disqualifying conflicts of t ii-3: drug-free workplace t ii-4 debarment and suspension t ii-5 lobbying t ii-6: nondiscrimination t ii-7: definitions of categories of proposal processing and review principles and review review ion of al file ons to proposals made information provided to e of grantee proposal t iii-1: proposal and award -award decisions and als not accepted or returned without lishment-based ical sciences (bio). 1 january 25, r ii - proposal preparation 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 the office of budget, finance & award management (bfa). This guide also serves as a means of highlighting the accountability requirements associated with federal facilitate proposal preparation, frequently asked questions (faqs) regarding proposal preparation and submission are available on the nsf ers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of nsfs mission, as articulated in investing in science, engineering, and education for the nations future: nsf strategic plan, 2014-2018. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. Conformance with instructions for proposal is important that all proposals conform to the instructions provided in the gpg or nsf 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. 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 ers 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. Format of the to 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 application guide. The proposal preparation checklist (gpg exhibit ii-1) 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 entering the proposal preparation module, the pi will be prompted to select information describing the nature and type of proposal being r the proposal is:A collaborative proposal from one organization (see gpg chapter ii. A collaborative type of proposal being developed:Research - other than rapid or eager (see gpg chapter ii);. Requested proposal information noted above will be used to determine the applicable proposal preparation business rules that must be followed. Proposers are strongly advised to review the applicable sections of the gpg pertinent to the type of proposal being developed prior to submission. Each section of the proposal that is uploaded as a file should be individually paginated prior to being uploaded to the electronic system.
Margins, in all directions, must be at least an requirements apply to all uploaded sections of a proposal, including supplementary ers are strongly encouraged to use only a standard, single-column format for 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. Single-copy n 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 function10), these documents should be submitted via the proposal preparation module. For obtaining authorization to deviate from nsf proposal preparation instructions are provided in gpg chapter ii. May include a list of suggested reviewers (including email address and institutional affiliation) who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal. Gpg exhibit ii-2 contains information on conflicts of interest that may be useful in preparation of this cognizant program officer handling the proposal considers the suggestions and may contact the proposer for further information. Proposal 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 sign and submit the proposal, including the proposal certifications. It is the proposing organization's responsibility to assure that only properly authorized individuals perform this 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 ication 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. See gpg exhibit ii-3 for the full text of the debarment and suspension ication regarding lobbying: when the proposal exceeds $100,000, the aor is required to complete a certification regarding lobbying restrictions. The box for "disclosure of lobbying activities" must be checked on the proposal cover sheet only if, pursuant to paragraph 2 of the certification, submission of the sf lll is ication regarding nondiscrimination: the aor is required to complete a certification regarding compliance with nsf nondiscrimination regulations and policies. 2) building (and any related equipment) is covered by adequate flood signing the proposal 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 ctive 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 ication regarding responsible conduct of research (rcr)13: 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 onal information on nsfs rcr policy is available in the aag chapter iv. While training plans are not required to be included in proposals submitted to nsf, institutions are advised that they are subject to review upon ication 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 ication regarding federal tax obligations: when the proposal exceeds $5,000,000, the aor is required to complete a certification regarding federal tax obligations.
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. Sections of the sections described below represent the body of a research proposal submitted to nsf. Failure to submit the required sections will result in the proposal not being accepted14, or being returned without review. Preparation instructions for rapid, eager, ideas lab, collaborative, equipment, conference, international travel, center, and major research equipment and facility projects may deviate from the above content requirements. Program solicitations also may deviate from the above content proposals to nsf will be reviewed using the two nsb-approved merit review criteria described in greater length in gpg chapter are four major components of the cover sheet. If the proposal is not submitted in response to a specific program description, announcement, or solicitation, proposers should select "grant proposal guide. 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 ers must follow instructions for selection of an applicable nsf division/office and program(s) to which the proposal should be directed. The proposal also may identify up to four additional individual's name and either nsf id or primary registered e-mail address, must be entered in the boxes provided. D) previous nsf 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 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 proposal 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. E) other federal 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. For example, proposals for the operations and maintenance of research vessels may list the project/performance site as the vessels home port. H) other any of the following items on the proposal cover sheet apply to a proposal, the applicable box(es) must be ing investigator (see gpg i. For each proposal that describes an international activity, proposers should list the primary countries involved. If the specific location of the international conference is not known at the time of the proposal submission, proposers should enter "worldwide".
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 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. These issues apply to both the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader project description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a section labeled "broader impacts". 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 us; and enhanced infrastructure for research and 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. Ii) page limitations and inclusion of uniform resource locators (urls) within the project y will assist reviewers and foundation staff in dealing effectively with proposals. Iii) results from prior nsf any pi or co-pi identified on the proposal has received nsf funding with a start date17 in the past five years (including any current funding and no cost extensions), information on the award is required for each pi and co-pi, regardless 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 to existing awards), they need only report on the one award most closely related to the proposal. 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. F) if the proposal is for renewed support, a description of the relation of the completed work to the proposed ers will be asked to comment on the quality of the prior work described in this section of the proposal. Iv) unfunded 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. Such letters should be provided in the supplementary documentation section of the fastlane proposal preparation module and follow the format instructions specified in gpg chapter ii. Collaborative activities that are identified in the budget should follow the instructions in gpg chapter 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. Vi) proposals for renewed gpg chapter v for guidance on preparation of renewal nce information is required. A proposal that includes reference citation(s) that do not specify a url is not considered to be in violation of nsf proposal preparation guidelines and the proposal will still be ers must be especially careful to follow accepted scholarly practices in providing citations for source materials relied upon when preparing any section of the proposal. However, proposers are advised that they are still responsible for ensuring that biographical sketches created using third-party solutions are compliant with nsf proposal preparation not submit any personal information in the biographical sketch. Such personal information is not appropriate for the biographical sketch and is not relevant to the merits of the proposal. Each individuals biographical sketch must be uploaded as a single pdf file or inserted as text associated with that 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 as a single pdf file in the other supplementary documents section of the proposal. Iii) equipment 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 information should be clearly identified as "equipment proposal" biographical information and uploaded as a single pdf file in the other supplementary documents section of the proposal. For proposals that contain a subaward(s), each subaward must include a separate budget justification of no more than three 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. Compensation for time normally spent on research within the term of appointment is deemed to be included within the faculty members regular organizational 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. 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. 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. This statement must include all of the information requested on the proposal budget for each person involved. The box for "proprietary or privileged information" must be checked on the proposal cover sheet when the proposal contains confidential budgetary information. 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. In order to qualify for support, however, attendance at meetings or conferences must be necessary to accomplish proposal objectives, or disseminate its results. 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. The number of participants to be supported must be entered in the parentheses on the proposal budget. Participant support costs must be specified, itemized and justified in the budget justification section of the proposal. A) materials and supplies (including costs of computing devices) (line g1 on the proposal budget). 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. C) consultant services (also referred to as professional service costs) (line g3 on the proposal budget). 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 and agreements known at the time of proposal submission, the intent to enter into such arrangements must be disclosed in the proposal. 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 is nsfs expectation that, consistent with 2 cfr 200.
Viii) indirect costs (also known as facilities and administrative costs (f&a) for colleges and universities) (line i on the proposal budget). Where specifically identified in an nsf program solicitation, the applicable us federally negotiated indirect cost rate(s) must be used in computing indirect costs (f&a) for a proposal. In implementation of the boards recommendation, nsfs guidance23 is as follows:Voluntary committed and uncommitted cost ion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited and line m on the proposal budget will not be available for use by the proposer. These resources are not auditable by nsf and should not be included in the proposal budget or budget 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. Current and pending 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. 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. Facilities, equipment and other 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. Such information must be provided in this section, in lieu of other parts of the proposal (e. 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. Each proposal26 that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers27 must include, as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. In no more than one page, the mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral researchers supported by the project, regardless of whether they reside at the submitting organization, any subrecipient organization, or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted collaborative project. Mentoring activities provided to postdoctoral researchers supported on the project will be evaluated under the broader impacts review es 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 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. And provisions for re-use, re-distribution, and the production of derivatives; for archiving data, samples, and other research products, and for preservation of access to aneously 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. 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 ale for performance of all or part of the project off-campus or away from organizational ntation of collaborative arrangements of significance to the proposal through letters of collaboration. The recommended format for letters of collaboration is as follows:"if the proposal submitted by dr. Insert the full name of the principal investigator] entitled [insert the proposal title] is selected for funding by nsf, it is my intent to collaborate and/or commit resources as detailed in the project description or the facilities, equipment or other resources section of the proposal.
Letters of collaboration are permitted, 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 support submitted in response to a program solicitation requirement must be unique to the specific proposal submitted and cannot be altered without the authors explicit prior order for nsf to comply with federal environmental statutes (including, but not limited to, the national environmental policy act [42 u. 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 ational ational research/education/training activities. For each proposal that describes an international activity, pis should list the primary countries involved on the cover sheet. If the specific location of the international conference is not known at the time of the proposal submission, proposers should enter "worldwide" on the cover in foreign countries. Proposals to any nsf program require operational worksheets by the first wednesday of june in the year before any proposed fieldwork. Where applicable, the box for "historic places" must be checked on the proposal cover ch involving field experiments with genetically engineered organisms. Please note that some program solicitations provide specific guidance on preparation and inclusion of management plans in proposals submitted to l 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 facilitating research at primarily undergraduate institutions (ruis and roas). 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. 12372 (intergovernmental review of federal programs) for activities that directly affect state or local governments, or possible national security information necessary for the review of a proposal must be contained in sections a through i of the proposal. Rapid response research (rapid) 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. Note this proposal preparation instruction deviates from the standard proposal preparation instructions contained in this guide; rapid proposals must otherwise be compliant with the "rapid" proposal type must be selected in the proposal preparation module in internal merit review is required for rapid proposals. The award size, however, will be consistent with the project scope and of a size comparable to grants in similar -cost extensions and requests for supplemental funding will be processed in accordance with standard nsf policies and d funding of rapid awards may be requested only through submission of a proposal that will be subject to full external merit review. 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. 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. Note this proposal preparation instruction deviates from the standard proposal preparation instructions contained in this guide; eager proposals must otherwise be compliant with the "eager" proposal type must be selected in the proposal preparation module in internal merit review is required for eager proposals. The award size, however, will be consistent with the project scope and of a size comparable to grants in similar -cost extensions and requests for supplemental funding will be processed in accordance with standard nsf policies and d funding of eager awards may be requested only through submission of a proposal that will be subject to full external merit review. This mechanism was developed collaboratively within nsf, modeled on the "sandpit" workshops that are a key component of the united kingdom research councils "ideas factory" implementation of the ideas lab mechanism is a four-stage process as described below:A.
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 within two months of receiving nsf notification after the ideas lab. Stage 4: review and recommendation of full d proposals will be reviewed internally by the cognizant nsf program officers, the ideas lab panelists, and other external reviewers, as appropriate. 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. The specific nature, purpose, and need for equipment or assistance should be described in sufficient detail in the proposal to permit evaluation by knowledgeable 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. Requests as part of a competitive proposal may be requested to purchase special equipment, modify equipment or provide services required specifically for the work to be undertaken. 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 organizations 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. Submission of a collaborative proposal from one single proposal method allows investigators from two or more organizations who have developed an integrated research project to submit a single, focused proposal. Submission of a collaborative proposal from multiple aneous submission of proposals allows multiple organizations to submit a unified set of certain proposal sections, as well as information unique to each organization as specified below. 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 ed sections of the proposal differ based on the organizations role. The following sections are required for a collaborative proposal submitted by:Non-lead of contents (automatically generated). Nsf will combine the proposal submission for printing or electronic submit the collaborative proposal, the following process must be completed:29.
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 date and time30, and failure to do so may result in the entire collaborative proposal being returned without review. These reports should reference the work of the collaborative, while focusing on the distinct work conducted at each funded organization. Equipment als 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. Investigators may be working in closely related areas or their research may be equipment proposal must contain all of the following proposal sections:Project summary: gpg chapter ii. 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. Should be consulted to prepare this portion of the proposals normally compete with proposals for research or education projects. 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 before an award can be issued. The approval letter must affirm that an animal-use protocol covering the proposed activities has been approved, and should explicitly list the proposers name, the title and number of the nsf proposal, and the date of iacuc approval. 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. 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 proposers name and referencing the title of the nsf proposal, and must be submitted prior to an award being also aag chapter vi. 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 only acceptable irb approval documents are those that approve a human subjects research protocol; approvals "in concept" are not acceptable. 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. 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. Proposals for conferences should generally be submitted at least a year in advance of the scheduled date. If included, these resources will not be auditable and must not be included in the proposal budget or budget justification.
A description of such support should be included in the facilities, equipment and other resources section of the proposal. 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. 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 r to proposals for conferences, symposia, or workshops, if any section is not required, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "not applicable. 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. Many of these mechanisms are funded by interested nsf programs on the basis of merit-reviewed proposals. 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. 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. The purpose of nsfs implementation of the policy is to clarify proposer expectations about nsf-funded research with certain high-consequence pathogens and toxins with potential to be considered dual use research of ing organizations are responsible for identifying nsf-funded life sciences proposals that could potentially be considered dual use research of concern as defined in the us government policy for institutional oversight of life sciences dual use research of concern and for compliance with the requirements established in that policy. Ii-1: proposal preparation is imperative that all proposals conform to the proposal preparation and submission instructions specified in the grant proposal 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. Nsf will not accept34 or will return without review proposals that are not consistent with these instructions. For additional to 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. The proposal is responsive to and compliant with the provisions in the program description, announcement, or solicitation. 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.
Note that voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited and line m on the proposal budget will not be available for use by the proposer. These resources are not auditable by nsf and should not be included in the proposal budget or budget justification. 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. Any additional items specified in a relevant program solicitation have been t ii-2: potentially disqualifying conflicts of a waiver has been granted by nsf, a reviewer cannot review a proposal if:The reviewer, the reviewers spouse, minor child, or business partner;. Organization where the reviewer is employed, has an arrangement for future employment or is negotiating for employment; organization where the reviewer is an officer, director, trustee, or partner,Has a financial interest in the outcome of the 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/ 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. Ii-3: drug-free workplace ctions for signing the nsf cover sheet and submitting this proposal, the authorized organizational representative is providing the certifications set out certification set out below is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the agency determined to award the grant. When notice is made to such a central point, it shall include the identification number(s) of each affected nsf, grantee notification should be made to the cost analysis & audit resolution branch, division of institution & award support, nsf, arlington, va t ii-4: debarment and suspension ction on certification regarding debarment and signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary participant is providing the certification set out inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 t ii-6: nondiscrimination ctions for nondiscrimination accordance with nsf policy, by signing the proposal, the authorized organizational representative is providing the requisite certification of compliance with national science foundation nondiscrimination regulations and policies. 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 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 ication of compliance with national science foundation nondiscrimination regulations and 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. This certification is binding on the proposer, its successors, transferees, and t ii-7: definitions of categories of personnel categories listed on parts a and b of the proposal budget are defined as follows:1. 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 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. For purposes of meeting the mentoring requirement, simultaneously submitted collaborative proposals, and collaborative proposals that include subawards, constitute a single unified project. Develop your collaborative 1: generate your p a preliminary your idea's potential for input & solicitations/funding 3: develop your the tand pi development standard proposal subrecipient nate compliance 4: submit your tand submission for completeness, accuracy and proper onic submission & it your 5: manage your & understand sponsor 6: share your ting & analyzing ing & journal hing & peer ing & collaborative orative proposals are those in which investigators from two or more organizations wish to a unified research project. They may be submitted to nsf in one of two methods:As a single proposal, in which a single award is being requested (with subawards the lead organization); or by simultaneous submission of proposals from different organizations, with each organization requesting a (lead institution links the separate awards in fastlane). Subawards of 's awardee organization subaward organization can access the proposal budget in several ways (e. Proposal pin, through a co-pi at the non-lead institution, or via passing fastlane budget as a spreadsheet).
Not a pi: either the individual or the research administration person can log oau (other authorized users), enter your last name, nsf id#, password, the temporary proposal id# , and the proposal pin a co-pi, submitting institutions needs co-pi’s id# or email address to add the proposal, and then co-pi can get in to the proposal in usual way (with name,Id#, and password in own screen). Proposals involving subawards, see obtain subrecipient aneous collaborative proposals submitted via fastlane:Project titles must begin with the words “collaborative research:”. Management plan; ties, equipment and other resources for their applicable, the lead organization’s submission also must include a post-doc that must not exceed one page, and that addresses the mentoring activities provided for all postdoctoral researchers supported under the entire collaborative -lead organization submissions will include all of the above for their the project summary, project description, and references cited (which are the all collaborating organizations). The proposals are linked, fastlane will combine the proposal submission for electronic orative proposals require simultaneous submission of proposals. One organization has the lead role but all are required to submit al proposal to fastlane, this means organization prepares their proposal (thus creating a temporary proposal number). Non-lead institution assigns a pin number (pin # created by the pi: find “” button on the “proposals actions” screen), and provides the temporary and pin to the lead org – and then the lead org lead institution links by entering each non-lead institution’s proposal pin ary proposal id number into the fastlane by using the “link collaborative proposals”. The lead institution needs to other collaborators know when that proposals can be linked together, and each institution can continue to do their own institution’s proposal, and submit when ready *within 24 hours of each other* (thus non-lead institutions can submit before the lead institution, as long as institution has linked the proposals; non-lead institutions can also submit lead, though less preferable since lead is unable to look at complete linking, each institution submits their proposal. Thus, each institution with a different proposal number – but in the fastlane system those separate linked together for printing or electronic viewing (with no new is not able to see the submission status of linked proposals.