Call for Workshops Proposals
* DisCoTec 2015 * 10th International Federated Conference on Distributed Computing Techniques http://discotec2015.inria.fr/
June 2-5, 2015
DisCoTec 2015 invites proposals for one-day workshops to be part of the joint event. DisCoTec 2015 hosts conferences in the area of coordination languages, distributed systems, and formal methods for distributed systems, ranging from practice to theory. We invite workshops in these areas to provide a vivid and open forum for discussions, presentations of preliminary research results and ongoing work as well as presentations of research work to a focused audience. One-day workshops will be held in conjunction with the main events. Prospective workshop organizers are requested to follow the guidelines below and are encouraged to contact the workshops chair (Sophie Quinton) if any questions arise.
* Important Dates *
December 5, 2014 Workshop proposal deadline
December 19, 2014 Workshop proposal notification
June 2-4, 2015 Main conferences
June 5, 2015 Workshops
Submission and notification deadlines of the workshops are at the discretion of the individual workshop organizers, however notification must be no later than the early registration deadline for DisCoTec.
* Proposal Submission Guidelines *
Workshop proposals must be written in English, not exceed 5 pages with reasonable font and margin, and be submitted in PDF format via email to Sophie Quinton (sophie.quinton AT inria.fr).
Proposals should include the following information:
- The title, theme, and goals of the workshop.
- The targeted audience and the expected number of participants. We prefer that workshops remain open to participation from any members of the community, but by-invitation-only workshops will also be considered. Please explicitly state your preference.
- The publicity strategy that will be used by the workshop organizers to promote the workshop.
- The participant solicitation and selection process.
- Publication plan. Each workshop is responsible for managing its own publication (e.g., pre- and/or post- proceedings), if any is desired.
- Approximate budget proposal (see Budget section below for details).
- A preliminary version of the call for papers, which must include important dates (e.g. submission, notification, and camera-ready deadlines).
- The equipment and any other resource necessary for the organization of the workshop; and whether a poster session is planned.
- A brief description of the organizer’s background, including relevant past experience on organizing workshops and contact information.
* Review Process *
Workshop proposals will be reviewed by the following committee:
- Alain Girault, INRIA Grenoble, France (general chair)
- Sophie Quinton, INRIA Grenoble, France (workshops chair)
- Jean-Bernard Stefani, INRIA Grenoble, France (member, DisCoTec Steering Committee)
Acceptance will be based on an evaluation of the workshop’s potential for generating useful results, the timeliness and expected interest in the topics, the organizer’s ability to lead a successful workshop, and potential for attracting participants.
* Workshop Publicity *
Workshop publicity is responsibility of the workshop organizers. In particular they are in charge of
1. Providing a workshop description (200 words) for inclusion on the DisCoTec 2015 website.
2. Hosting and maintaining web pages either on the DisCoTec 2015 website or linked from it.
3. Editing workshop proceedings, if any.
4. Publicising the event.
* Budget *
DisCoTec 2015 will provide registration and organizational support for the workshops. Registration fees must be paid for all participants, including organizers and invited guests. To cover lunches, coffee breaks and basic organizational expenses, all workshops will be required to charge a minimum participation fee (to be determined). Each workshop may increase this fee to cover additional expenses such as publication charges, student scholarships, costs for invited speakers, etc. All fees will be collected by the DisCoTec organizers as part of the registration and will be used to cover the expenses of each workshop as agreed with the workshop organizers.
* Contact Information *
Sophie Quinton (sophie.quinton AT inria.fr)
The 20th International Symposium on Formal Methods (FM 2015)
Oslo, Norway, June 22-26, 2015.
For this major event, we are inviting people to submit proposals for workshops.
The purpose of the workshops is to provide an informal setting for workshop participants to discuss technical issues, exchange research ideas, and to discuss and/or demonstrate applications. These workshops may be driven by fundamental academic interests or by needs from specific application domains. We encourage a diversity of workshops relating to different varieties of formal models. We also explicitly welcome satellite events in a non-traditional format, such as formal methods-related competitions.
All workshop proposals must be written in English.
Proposals for workshops should be no more than 3 pages in length and submitted to the Workshops chairs before November 14, 2014 (see below).
A workshop proposal should include a draft call-for-papers containing at least the following information:
- Title and brief technical description of the workshop, specifying the goals and the technical issues that will be its focus.
- The names and contact information (web page, email address) of the Programme Committee (PC) chairs, i.e., the workshop organisers.
- A tentative list of workshop PC members. We suggest one or two PC chairs and at least 10 PC members coming from different countries.
Moreover, the following additional information is requested:
- If the workshop has taken place before:
- How often has the workshop taken place so far?
- Which conference(s) has the workshop been colocated with so far?
- Number of participants in the last installment.
- A discussion of the proposed format and agenda.
- The proposed duration (half, one or two days).
- Procedures for selecting participants and papers.
- Potential invited speakers.
- Expected number of participants.
Each workshop programme chair will be responsible for the following:
- Producing a web page and a "Call for Papers/Participation" for their workshop.
- Providing a brief description of the workshop for the conference web page and programme, and providing a workshop web page the conference can refer to for details.
- Selecting the papers for the workshop proceedings and providing the camera ready copies ready for publication.
- All advertising of the workshop beyond web page advertising.
- Appointing session chairs, etc.
The local organisation of the conference will take care of the production of informal or electronic workshop proceedings, assuming that the proceedings are camera ready.
Submission of Workshop Proposals
Proposals should be submitted as a PDF file. Please send your proposals and any inquiries by electronic mail to the Workshop chairs:
Dates
- Deadline for workshop proposals: November 14, 2014
- Notification of decision on workshops: November 28, 2014
The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) and Intel Labs recently announced a new partnership to support novel, transformative, multidisciplinary approaches that address the problem of securing current and emerging cyber-physical systems, the infrastructures they form, and those integrated with them. A key goal of this activity is to foster a long-term research community committed to advancing research and education at the confluence of cybersecurity, privacy, and cyber-physical systems, and to transitioning its findings into engineering practice. The partnership aims to combine NSF’s experience in developing and managing successful large, diverse research portfolios with Intel’s long history of building research communities in emerging technology areas through efforts such as its Science and Technology Centers Program.
The joint solicitation calls for Synergy proposals, to be funded jointly by NSF and Intel at up to $1 million per year over three years, that take a holistic view of the challenges in protecting cyber-physical systems but also the human factors, policies, and economics of the future CPS marketplace. The larger award size is intended to enable more ambitious multidisciplinary exploration.
In addition, the solicitation includes a track for Breakthrough proposals, to be funded by NSF at up to $500,000 total over three years. These proposals should foster the collaboration of at least two PIs representing the cybersecurity and privacy as well as cyber-physical systems communities.
To achieve the goal of fostering a community of researchers at the intersection of cyber-physical systems and cybersecurity and privacy, the program includes an Ideas Lab to be held in the Greater Washington, DC, area on Aug. 12-16, 2014.
Preliminary proposals for participation in the Aug. 12-16 Ideas Lab are due via FastLane by July 29, 2014; full proposals must be received by Oct. 28, 2014. Participation in the Ideas Lab is not required for full proposals that were not developed through the Ideas Lab.
For more details, see the full solicitation at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14571/nsf14571.htm
NSF and Intel intend to hold a webinar on this solicitation in the second part of June; more details will be provided soon.
To gauge interest in the Ideas Lab and help with our planning, please respond by email to adkeromy@nsf.gov or dcorman@nsf.gov with an indication of interest and intend to submit a white paper (no commitment implied).
Submitted by Frankie King on June 7th, 2014
Cyber Physical Systems: From Theory to Practice
http://www.crcpress.com/
Editors:
Danda B. Rawat,Georgia Southern University, USA
Joel Rodrigues, Instituto de Telecomunicações, Univ. of Beira Interior, Portugal
Ivan Stojmenovic, University of Ottawa, CANADA
Call for Chapters
Chapter Proposal/Abstract Submission by: August 15, 2014
Author Notification by: August 25, 2014
Full Chapter Submission by: November 1, 2014
Synopsis and Aim:
After successful deployment of Internet and wireless networks (cellular and Wi-Fi networks) over the past decades, we already have ubiquitous services that provide anywhere, anytime connectivity to the users. Technology has gone through tremendous changes in terms of computing, communications and control to provide wide range of applications in all domains. This advancement provides the opportunities to bridge the physical components and the cyber space leading to the Cyber Physical Systems (CPS). The notion of CPS is to use computing (sensing, analyzing, predicting, understanding), communication (interaction, intervene, interface management) and control (inter-operate, evolve, evidence-based certification) to make intelligent and autonomous systems. Thus, advances made as well as complexity have increased due to the integration of cyber components with physical systems. Comprehensive knowledge base of CPS domain is required not only for researchers and practitioners, but also for policy makers and system managers. The process of building a knowledge-base for cyber physical systems is possible through the creation of a comprehensive collection of research and trends on the topic. Unfortunately, such a collection of research on CPS does not exist. The forthcoming book “Cyber Physical Systems: From Theory to Practice” will address significant issues in the field.
The objective of this book is to provide (a medium for researchers and practitioners to present) state-of-the-art of research results and trends related to Science of Cyber-Physical Systems, Technology for Cyber-Physical Systems, and Engineering of Cyber-Physical Systems from theory to practice.
Topics of interest (but are not limited to):
- Cyber Physical Systems: Architecture
- Cyber Physical Systems: Modeling and Simulation
- Virtualization of Physical Components in Cyber Physical Systems
- Computing and Control in Cyber-Physical Systems
- Design and Performance Optimization in Cyber Physical Systems
- Cloud-assisted Situation-aware and decision support in Cyber Physical Systems
- Big-data Processing and Visualization in Cyber-Physical Systems
- Mobile Cyber-Physical Systems
- Game Theory for Cyber Physical Systems
- Control Theory for Cyber Physical Systems
- Tools and Methods for Cyber-Physical Systems
- Sensor-actuator Networks
- Internet of Things (IoT)
- Machine-to-machine (M2M) Communication
- Cyber-Physical System Security and Privacy
- Wireless Sensor and Actuator Networks for Cyber Physical Systems
- Cyber Physical Systems for Smart Grid
- Intelligent (Road/Air) Transportation Cyber Physical Systems
- Cyber Physical Systems for Health Care
- Cyber Physical Systems: Tools, test beds and deployment issues
- Cyber Physical Systems: Applications and standardization
- Intrusion Detection System/Intrusion Prevention System
- Standardization, Applications and Case Studies
Submission Procedure:
Chapter Proposals/Abstracts: Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit their chapter proposals/abstracts (2-3 pages) by the given deadline by clearly explaining the mission of their proposed chapters to db.rawat@ieee.org and CC to other editors. No specific page format is required for proposals/abstracts. Authors of accepted proposals will be notified by the given deadline about the status of their proposals and sent chapter guidelines.
Full Book Chapter: Complete chapters are required to be submitted to db.rawat@ieee.org . Author could use LaTex or any word processing tools (MS Word, OpenDocument, etc.) while preparing the chapters. A book chapter is required to be 15 to 25 pages (9,500 to 12,500 words).
Important Dates:
Chapter Proposal/Abstract Submission by: August 15, 2014
Author Notification by: August 25, 2014
Full Chapter Submission by: November 1, 2014
Review Results Returned: December 1, 2014
Final Chapter Submission: December 31, 2014
Anticipated Publication Date: Spring 2015
INQUIRIES and SUBMISSIONS should be forwarded electronically to the (corresponding) editor(s):
Danda B. Rawat (Corresponding)
Department of Electrical Engineering
Post Office Box 8045
Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, GA 30460, USA
Tel: +1 (912) 478 - 0539
Fax: +1 (912) 478 - 0537
E-mail: db.rawat@ieee.org
Joel Rodrigues
Department of Informatics
University of Beira Interior
Rua Marquês D'Ávila e Bolama
6201-001 Covilhã - Portugal
Tel. +351 275 242 081 (Ext. 3275)
E-mail: joeljr@ieee.org
or joel@ubi.pt
Ivan Stojmenovic
University of Ottawa
SITE, 800 King Edward, Ottawa
Ontario K1N 6N5,
Canada
Email: ivan@site.uottawa.ca
or stojmenovic@gmail.com
CODES+ISSS 2014
Call for Special Sessions
Researchers both from academia and industry are invited to submit proposals for special sessions to be held during the CODES+ISSS 2014 conference. The special sessions should aim at providing a complementary experience compared to the regular sessions and hence should include hot topics of interest to the Embedded Systems community that may also go beyond disciplines traditionally represented at CODES+ISSS. The special session could constitute either a thematic session containing individual presentations or a panel.
The special session proposal should include:
- Title of the special session
- Rationale of the need for the special session at CODES+ISSS. The rationale should stress the novelty of the topic and /or subjects covered by the regular sessions
- Short biography of the organizers
- List of 3-4 contributed presentations (including titles, presenters, contact information of the corresponding presenter, and an abstract of each contribution). For panel proposals, list three to five panelists and their area of expertise.
Proposals are due on or before May 30, 2014 and should be sent via
e-mail (PDF or ASCII) to the Program Chairs, Radu Marculescu
(radum@cmu.edu) and Gabriela Nicolescu (gabriela.nicolescu@polymtl.ca).
Proposals will be evaluated based on the timeliness of the topic and the
qualification of presenters involved in the session.
Participants of each accepted special session will have the opportunity
to submit a single overview paper covering the main aspects of the
session (the presenters will co-author this paper). Alternatively, each
presenter will have the option of submitting an extended abstract of
their presentation.
Important dates
Special Session proposal due: May 30, 2014
Acceptance notification: June 27, 2013
Contacts
Radu Marculescu, radum@cmu.edu
Gabriela Nicolescu, gabriela.nicolescu@polymtl.ca For more information,
visit our website: http://esweek.acm.org/codesisss/
Embedded Systems Week (ESWEEK) 2014
--- Call for Workshop Proposals
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in the previous years, ESWEEK 2014 (http://www.esweek.org) in
New Delhi, India will host several workshops on Sunday October 12th,
Thursday October 16th, and Friday October 17th. ESWEEK 2014 is
soliciting proposals for new and recurring workshops.
ESWEEK workshops are excellent opportunities to bring together
researchers from different communities to share their experiences
and to foster collaboration of new and innovative R&D projects. We
invite you to submit workshop proposals on any topic related to the
broad set of research and application areas covered the by three leading
conferences (CASES, CODES+ISSS, and EMSOFT) and symposium (ESTIMedia).
Details for the submission:
1. Proposals should be submitted at the latest by May 16th, 2014,
17h00 EST
2. 2-page maximum PDF file, including the following information:
* Title
* Abstract (max 200 words)
* Organizers with short bio and affiliation
* List of topics to be covered
* Workshop format
* In case the workshop has been previously held, provide information
on the dates, and number of attendees
* For new workshops, the no of days (half-day/one-day/one day and half)
and the expected number of participants
Please send your proposals by email addressed to Prof. Prabhat Mishra
(prabhat@cise.ufl.edu). Please write "[ESWEEK 2014] Workshop Proposal"
on the e-mail subject line.
=====================================================
C A L L F O R W O R K S H O P P R O P O S A L S
**** ACM SenSys 2014 ****
Memphis, TN, USA
November 3-6, 2014
http://sensys.acm.org/2014/workshops/
=====================================================
The 12th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2014) is a highly selective, single-track forum for research on systems issues of networked sensing and actuation, broadly defined. Systems of smart sensors and actuators will revolutionize a wide array of application areas by providing an unprecedented density and fidelity of instrumentation. They also present systems challenges because of resource constraints, uncertainty, irregularity, mobility, and scale. This conference provides an ideal venue to address research challenges facing the design, development, deployment, use, and fundamental limits of these systems. Sensing and actuation systems require contributions from many fields, from wireless communication and networking, embedded systems and hardware, energy harvesting and management, distributed systems and algorithms, data management, and applications, so we welcome cross-disciplinary work.
Workshops will be held on Thursday, Nov 6, 2014.
The ideal workshop proposal should focus on a specific emerging research area that is of strategic and long-term interest to the Embedded Networked Sensor Systems community. Interdisciplinary efforts that can leverage the expertise in the SenSys community while reaching out to new application domains, emerging technologies, and data analytics expertise to solve real-world sensing problems, are particularly encouraged. Workshops could have a combination of relevant invited talks from experts in a field, together with research papers and demos in the area.
The proposal should be no longer than three pages, and should clearly provide the following information:
. name of workshop
. theme of workshop
. topic areas of interest (to define scope)
. name(s) and affiliation(s) of main organizer(s)/program chair(s)
. the name of the organizing committee member who will be the main point of contact
. names of potential program committee members
. tentative call for papers with workshop deadlines
. expected number of submissions and participants
The proposal should also specify if it will be a full-day or half-day workshop, and any logistical needs (demos/audio/video projection, etc). If the workshop has been held before, also include its history (number of submissions, number of accepted papers, and number of attendees).
Note that selection priority will be given to proposals arising from previously successful co-located workshops.
Please send proposals in PDF format to the Workshop Chair (davidboyleimperial.ac.uk) by 31 March, 2014.
Important dates:
Proposal Submission Deadline 31 Mar, 2014
Notification of Acceptance 14 Apr, 2014
SenSys 2014 Workshops 06 Nov, 2014
Program Solicitation
NSF 14-542
Replaces Document(s):
NSF 13-502
 |
National Science Foundation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Submission Window Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
May 19, 2014 - June 02, 2014
December 01, 2014 - December 15, 2014
December 1 - December 15, Annually Thereafter
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES
The Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) program solicitation has been revised for the FY 2014 competition, and prospective Principal Investigators are encouraged to read the solicitation carefully. Among the changes are the following:
- The U.S. Department of Homeland (DHS) Security Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and, through FHWA, U.S. DOT Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO) have joined the program.
- A new supplemental option on "Transition to Practice" (TTP) is being offered.
- A new emphasis on the potential utilization of testbeds for CPS research has been added.
- New requirements for Supplementary Documents for Breakthrough and Frontier proposals have been introduced.
- A requirement for a list of collaborators for all members of the project team, to be submitted as a Supplementary Document, has been added.
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
General Information
Program Title:
Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)
Synopsis of Program:
Cyber-physical systems (CPS) are engineered systems that are built from, and depend upon, the seamless integration of computational algorithms and physical components. Advances in CPS will enable capability, adaptability, scalability, resiliency, safety, security, and usability that will far exceed the simple embedded systems of today. CPS technology will transform the way people interact with engineered systems -- just as the Internet has transformed the way people interact with information. New smart CPS will drive innovation and competition in sectors such as agriculture, energy, transportation, building design and automation, healthcare, and manufacturing.
The December 2010 report of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) titled Designing a Digital Future: Federally Funded Research and Development in Networking and Information Technology calls for continued investment in CPS research because of its scientific and technological importance as well as its potential impact on grand challenges in a number of sectors critical to U.S. security and competitiveness such as the ones noted above. These challenges and technology gaps are further described in a CPS Vision Statement published in 2012 by the Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program's CPS Senior Steering Group.
Tremendous progress has been made in advancing CPS technology over the last five years. We have explored foundational technologies that have spanned an ever-growing set of application domains, enabling breakthrough achievements in many of these fields. At the same time, the demand for innovation in these domains continues to grow, and is driving the need to accelerate fundamental research to keep pace.
Despite significant inroads into CPS technology in recent years, we do not yet have a mature science to support systems engineering of high-confidence CPS, and the consequences are profound. Traditional analysis tools are unable to cope with the full complexity of CPS or adequately predict system behavior. For example, minor events that trip the current electric power grid -- an ad hoc system -- can escalate with surprising speed into widespread power failures. This scenario exemplifies the lack of appropriate science and technology to conceptualize and design for the deep interdependencies among engineered systems and the natural world. The challenges and opportunities for CPS are thus significant and far-reaching. New relationships between the cyber and physical components require new architectural models that redefine form and function. They integrate the continuous and discrete, compounded by the uncertainty of open environments. Traditional real-time performance guarantees are insufficient for CPS when systems are large and spatially, temporally, or hierarchically distributed in configurations that may rapidly change. With the greater autonomy and cooperation possible with CPS, greater assurances of safety, security, scalability, and reliability are demanded, placing a high premium on open interfaces, modularity, interoperability, and verification.
The goal of the CPS program is to develop the core system science needed to engineer complex cyber-physical systems upon which people can depend with high confidence. The program aims to foster a research community committed to advancing research and education in CPS and to transitioning CPS science and technology into engineering practice. By abstracting from the particulars of specific systems and application domains, the CPS program seeks to reveal cross-cutting fundamental scientific and engineering principles that underpin the integration of cyber and physical elements across all application sectors. To expedite and accelerate the realization of cyber-physical systems in a wide range of applications, the CPS program also supports the development of methods, tools, and hardware and software components based upon these cross-cutting principles, along with validation of the principles via prototypes and testbeds.
In 2014, NSF is working closely with multiple agencies of the federal government, including the U.S. Department of Homeland (DHS) Security Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and, through FHWA, U.S. DOT Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO), to identify basic research needs in CPS common across multiple application domains, along with opportunities for accelerated transition to practice.
Three types of research and education projects -- differing in scope and goals -- will be considered through this solicitation:
- Breakthrough projects must offer a significant advance in fundamental CPS science, engineering and/or technology that has the potential to change the field. This category focuses on new approaches to bridge computing, communication, and control. Funding for Breakthrough projects may be requested for a total of up to $500,000 for a period of up to 3 years.
- Synergy projects must demonstrate innovation at the intersection of multiple disciplines, to accomplish a clear goal that requires an integrated perspective spanning the disciplines. Funding for Synergy projects may be requested for a total of $500,001 to $1,000,000 for a period of 3 to 4 years.
- Frontier projects must address clearly identified critical CPS challenges that cannot be achieved by a set of smaller projects. Funding may be requested for a total of $1,000,001 to $7,000,000 for a period of 4 to 5 years.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
-
David Corman, Program Director, CISE/CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8754, email: dcorman@nsf.gov
-
Radhakisan Baheti, Program Director, ENG/ECCS, 525, telephone: (703) 292-8339, email: rbaheti@nsf.gov
-
Theodore P. Baker, Program Director, CISE/CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8608, email: tbaker@nsf.gov
-
Bruce Kramer, Program Director, ENG/CMMI, 545, telephone: (703) 292-5348, email: bkramer@nsf.gov
-
Bruce Hamilton, Program Director, ENG/CBET, 565, telephone: (703) 292-7066, email: bhamilto@nsf.gov
-
Frank Olken, Program Director, CISE/IIS, 1125, telephone: (703) 292-4767, email: folken@nsf.gov
-
Phillip Regalia, Program Director, CISE/CCF, 1115, telephone: (703) 292-8910, email: pregalia@nsf.gov
-
Sylvia Spengler, Program Director, CISE/IIS, 1125, telephone: (703) 292-8930, email: sspengle@nsf.gov
-
Kevin Thompson, Program Director, CISE/ACI, 1145, telephone: (703) 292-4220, email: kthompso@nsf.gov
-
Ralph Wachter, Program Director, CISE/CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: rwachter@nsf.gov
-
Daniel Massey, Program Director, DHS S&T, telephone: 202-254-0908, email: daniel.massey@hq.dhs.gov
-
David Kuehn, Program Manager, DOT/FHWA, telephone: (202) 493-3414, email: david.kuehn@dot.gov
-
Kevin Dopart, Program Director, DOT/ITS JPO, telephone: 202-366-8034, email: kevin.dopart@dot.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
- 20.200 --- Highway Research and Development Program
- 47.041 --- Engineering
- 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
- 97.065 --- Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: 20 to 32
Approximately 10 Breakthrough projects, 20 Synergy projects, and 2 Frontier projects are anticipated in FY 14.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $35,000,000 in FY 14, subject to the availability of funds and receipt of sufficient meritorious proposals.
Eligibility Information
Who May Submit Proposals:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
- Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
- Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.
Who May Serve as PI:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2
An individual can participate as PI, co-PI, or Senior Personnel on no more than two proposals submitted in response to this solicitation.
These eligibility constraints will be strictly enforced in order to treat everyone fairly and consistently. In the event that an individual exceeds the two-proposal limit for this solicitation, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on earliest date and time of proposal submission (i.e., the first two proposals received will be accepted and the remainder will be returned without review). No exceptions will be made.
Additionally, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation may not duplicate or be substantially similar to other proposals concurrently under consideration by other NSF, DHS or DOT programs. Duplicate or substantially similar proposals will be returned without review, including those substantially similar to previously declined proposals without revisions to address concerns raised by reviewers.
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
- Letters of Intent: Not Applicable
- Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable
- Full Proposals:
- Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
- Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)
B. Budgetary Information
- Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
- Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable
- Other Budgetary Limitations: Not Applicable
C. Due Dates
- Submission Window Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
May 19, 2014 - June 02, 2014
December 01, 2014 - December 15, 2014
December 1 - December 15, Annually Thereafter
Proposal Review Information Criteria
Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Award Administration Information
Award Conditions: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Reporting Requirements: Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Introduction
- Program Description
- Award Information
- Eligibility Information
- Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
- NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
- Merit Review Principles and Criteria
- Review and Selection Process
- Notification of the Award
- Award Conditions
- Reporting Requirements
- Award Administration Information
- Agency Contacts
- Other Information
I. INTRODUCTION
Cyber-physical systems (CPS) are engineered systems that are built from, and depend upon, the seamless integration of computational algorithms and physical components. Advances in CPS will enable capability, adaptability, scalability, resiliency, safety, security, and usability that will far exceed the simple embedded systems of today. CPS technology will transform the way people interact with engineered systems -- just as the Internet has transformed the way people interact with information. New smart CPS will drive innovation and competition in sectors such as agriculture, energy, transportation, building design and automation, healthcare, and manufacturing.
Tremendous progress has been made in advancing CPS technology over the past five years. We have explored foundational technologies that have spanned an ever-growing set of application domains, enabling breakthrough achievements in many disparate fields such as those noted above. At the same time, the demand for innovation in these domains continues to grow, and is driving the need to accelerate fundamental research to keep pace.
Despite significant inroads into CPS technology in recent years, we do not yet have a mature science to support systems engineering of high-confidence CPS, and the consequences are profound. Traditional analysis tools are unable to cope with the full complexity of CPS or adequately predict system behavior. For example, minor events that trip the current electric power grid -- an ad hoc system -- can escalate with surprising speed into widespread power failures. This scenario exemplifies the lack of appropriate science and technology to conceptualize and design for the deep interdependencies among engineered systems and the natural world. The challenges and opportunities for CPS are thus significant and far-reaching. New relationships between the cyber and physical components require new architectural models that redefine form and function. They integrate the continuous and discrete, compounded by the uncertainty of open environments. Traditional real-time performance guarantees are insufficient for CPS when systems are large and spatially, temporally, or hierarchically distributed in configurations that may rapidly change. With the greater autonomy and cooperation possible with CPS, greater assurances of safety, security, scalability, and reliability are demanded, placing a high premium on open interfaces, modularity, interoperability, and verification.
The CPS program seeks to develop the core system science needed to enable development of complex CPS upon which people can depend with high confidence. The program also aims to foster a research community committed to advancing research and education in CPS and to transitioning applicable CPS science and technology into engineering practice.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The goal of the Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) program is to establish the scientific foundations and engineering principles needed to realize cyber-physical systems with capability and dependability far beyond what we are able to achieve today.
To reach this goal, CPS scientific foundations and engineering principles must overcome challenges that are ubiquitous and fundamental for this class of systems. For example, one CPS consideration is the interaction of both cyber and physical components whose dynamics have historically been modeled separately but need to be modeled jointly in terms of the discrete, continuous, and perhaps uncertain behaviors of a given system and its environment. Another consideration is that CPS increasingly are autonomous or semi-autonomous and cannot be designed as closed systems that operate in isolation; rather, the interaction and potential interference among 'smart' components, among CPS, and among CPS and humans requires coordinated, controlled, and cooperative behavior.
Toward these considerations, new concepts need to be devised. Foundations and engineering principles must support a unifying model that enables CPS that are both open and modular. Adequate solutions to these problems will require an integrated perspective of real-time computing, communications, dynamics, and control.
The CPS program therefore:
- takes a coordinated approach that balances theory with experimentation, and systematic advances with revolutionary breakthroughs;
- seeks cross-disciplinary collaborative research that will lead to new fundamental insights;
- encourages empirical validation of new concepts through research prototypes, ranging from component devices to entire systems; and
- aims to identify promising innovations that have the potential of immediate practical applications, supporting transitioning such innovations to practice.
The program also recognizes that CPS innovation can be fostered by the presence of open, scalable, and extensible testbeds that enable early research concepts to be explored in a realistic environment.
In 2014, NSF is working closely with multiple agencies of the federal government, including the U.S. Department of Homeland (DHS) Security Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and, through FHWA, U.S. DOT Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO), to identify basic research needs in CPS common across multiple application domains, along with opportunities for accelerated transition to practice.
To help achieve these aims, this CPS program solicitation aims to:
- Pursue fundamental research in CPS that spans multiple domains;
- Identify early-stage CPS research that addresses important needs of mission agencies as described in II.C, and has potential for accelerated maturation, demonstration, and transition to practice; and
- Encourage research utilization of both academic and industry testbeds that can integrate research components.
To the last point above, effective use of testbeds can spur innovations and accelerate research by providing scalable and open environments for experimentation. If applicable, researchers should consider using testbeds that include virtual simulation environments for early experimentation, higher fidelity hardware-in-the-loop environments and live platforms. The program strongly encourages proposers to include in their proposals how their research may take advantage of such testbeds as means for experimental validation and maturation in realistic environments.
II.A Research Areas
This solicitation seeks to address foundational issues that are central across CPS applications, including, but not limited to, the following:
- System Design -- How do we design CPS to be safe, secure, and resilient in a variety of unanticipated and rapidly evolving environments and disturbances? How do we integrate privacy and security into CPS design?
- System Verification -- How do we develop effective metrics and methods to rapidly verify and certify very large and complex CPS? What technologies enable incremental certification? How can we preserve safety yet dramatically reduce the "test space" when it comes to manned, unmanned, and mixed authority systems spanning a variety of disciplines?
- Real-time Control and Adaptation -- How do we achieve real-time dynamic control and behavior adaptation in a diversity of environments such as clouds, as well as in network-challenged spaces? How can CPS leverage "big data" in real-time control?
- Manufacturing -- How can communication, computation, and control be harnessed to provide expanded and effective access to means of conceiving of new products, reducing product concepts to realizable designs, and producing integrated software-hardware systems at a pace far exceeding today's timelines?
While the CPS program welcomes proposals that address research issues across a wide range of domains in CPS, a proposal must address at least one of the following three "research target areas" as described below: Science of Cyber-Physical Systems; Technology for Cyber-Physical Systems; and/or Engineering of Cyber-Physical Systems.
II.A.1 Science of Cyber-Physical Systems: CPS must move beyond the classical fundamental models of computation and physics. CPS require new models and theories that unify perspectives, capable of expressing the interacting dynamics of the computational and physical components of a system in a dynamic environment. A unified science would support composition, bridge the computational versus physical notions of time and space, cope with uncertainty, and enable cyber-physical systems to interoperate and evolve.
II.A.2 Technology for Cyber-Physical Systems: New design, analysis, and verification tools that embody the scientific principles of CPS and incorporate measurement, dynamics, and control are needed. These tools should offer important perspectives into behaviors and interactions of CPS. New building blocks are also needed, including hardware computing platforms, operating systems, and middleware. The chain of tools and building blocks must integrate to support end-to-end assurances, and cover the full lifecycle of systems. Particular attention should be given to interfaces, interface management, extensibility, interoperability, and the controlled visibility of explicit and implicit assumptions. A particular goal is to enable evidence-based certification, and to maintain certification as a system evolves.
II.A.3 Engineering of Cyber-Physical Systems: CPS opens a new opportunity to rethink the principles and methods of systems engineering that are built on the foundations of CPS science and technology. Attention should be given to system architectures, designs, and integrations as well as the exploration of design spaces that will produce certifiably dependable systems. New engineering principles are needed to systematize design for the growing numbers of CPS that involve adaptation and autonomy. All advances should be assessed by appropriate benchmarks. The engineering processes must also support certification and maintenance of certification over system lifecycles.
Across all these research target areas, the program welcomes projects that explore next-generation CPS applications in conjunction with research in one or more of the three CPS research target areas above. Such projects should incorporate careful experimentation designed to inform CPS science and technology. Systems of interest will be at the same time transformative and translational, demonstrating inventive new ideas and multi-disciplinary technical approaches to address societal challenges. Challenge applications can range from highly focused inventions enabled by CPS technology to revolutionary approaches for next-generation infrastructures. The program encourages projects that address concerns shared by other federal agencies such as agriculture, energy, transportation, health, and national security. The program especially welcomes projects that address renewable energy, advanced manufacturing, and automation for vehicle and highway safety, reliability, and efficiency.
The CPS program also has interest in proposals that demonstrate the development of foundational capabilities that can be integrated with successively higher fidelity testbeds including actual CPS. Proposals should pursue principled experimentation, prototyping, and validation activities to show viability of the proposed research. Research programs that include a transformative component as well as transition to practice component (as a second phase of the proposed activities) are encouraged -- especially in focus areas of relevance to the federal mission agencies mentioned above. Experimentation on an actual cyber-physical system is required for projects of greater than three years.
II.B Types of Proposals
The following three types of research and education proposals that differ in scope and goals will be accepted:
Breakthrough Projects: The proposed research should clearly identify and explain a major advance in fundamental CPS science and/or CPS technology that bridges scientific or technology gaps between computing, communications, and control, and achieves new capability for high-confidence real-time and embedded systems, real-time data management and processing, and/or secure, networked real-time control. A successful Breakthrough project is expected to open a new research direction that will significantly change the field. Proposals for Breakthrough projects are required to have a statement of up to one page that persuasively reasons why the research to be undertaken, if successful, would significantly change the field of cyber-physical systems. This statement must be submitted as a document under Supplementary Documentation. Breakthrough proposals may be up to $500,000 in total budget, with durations of up to three years.
Synergy Projects: The proposed research should demonstrate innovation at the intersection of multiple disciplines. The research must have a clear goal that reflects a shared perspective, crossing the disciplines and achieving integration. The proposal must explain clearly the synergy that will be achieved by the collaboration. Synergy proposals must be between $500,001 and $1,000,000 in total budget, with durations of three to four years.
Frontier Projects: The proposal must clearly identify and address critical CPS science, engineering or technological challenges that cannot be achieved by a set of smaller projects. The goal, scale, and degree of integration of the proposed research must clearly require this major investment. The research plan must include validation of theory through empirical demonstration in a prototype or testbed. There must be a plan for sharing results, including testbeds and artifacts, with the CPS research community through the CPS Virtual Organization (CPS-VO). Frontier proposals may additionally include a Transition to Practice (TTP) Option, as specified in Section II.D, that considers maturation of technologies for broader application and involves potential end users and stakeholders. Frontier proposals may be from $1,000,001 to $7,000,000 in total budget, with durations of four to five years.
II.B.1 Other Funding Opportunities: The CPS program notes the Computing Research Infrastructure (CRI; see NSF 13-585) and Major Research Instrumentation (MRI; see NSF 13-517) programs as potential sources of funding for community infrastructure and experimental testbeds for CPS research.
II.C Sponsoring Agency Mission-Specific Research
NSF welcomes proposals addressing any of the fundamental CPS research areas described in section II.A above. In addition, through this solicitation, multiple federal agencies are interested in addressing CPS basic research needs of relevance to their missions, along with opportunities for accelerated transition to practice. These interests are described below.
II.C.1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T) Homeland Security Advanced Research Project Agency (HSARPA)
Within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T), the Advanced Research Project Agency (HSARPA) encourages research and development in cybersecurity to enhance the resilience of critical information infrastructure. HSARPA seeks to develop and transition new technologies, tools, and techniques to secure systems, networks, and infrastructure. Its research interests span a broad range of technology maturity levels ranging from foundational research in cybersecurity technology, to development and transition to practice.
HSARPA has particular interests in security technologies relevant to cyber-physical systems. The NITRD CPS Senior Steering Group's 2012 CPS Vision Statement, which notes CPS research gaps, identifies drivers and technologies for CPS. CPS related to transportation, emergency response, energy, and healthcare are considered especially relevant for HSARPA. Relevant technologies include cybersecurity approaches for guarding against malicious attacks on CPS as well as diagnostics and prognostics that aim to identify, predict, and prevent or recover from faults. Validation, verification, and certification that speed up design cycles while ensuring high confidence in system safety and functionality also align well with HSARPA interests.
More information about relevant DHS S&T cybersecurity technology interests can be found on the following website: http://www.dhs.gov/csd-program-areas.
II.C.2 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in coordination with other agencies in the Department of Transportation (DOT) and elsewhere, has been researching connected highway and vehicle systems to improve the safety, mobility, and efficiency of the nation's highways. Under its Exploratory Advanced Research (EAR) program, FHWA is funding research to leapfrog current technological approaches for linking infrastructure with future vehicle and personal mobility technology to improve safety and mobility. Specific areas of interest within the EAR program include enabling technology for positioning, navigation, time synchronization, sensor integration, and improved situational awareness, as well as new system concepts for vehicle platooning, speed management, intersection management, and vehicle merging. (For more information about the EAR Program and results relating to connected vehicles, see the following website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/advancedresearch/.)
All of these topics depend on the tight coupling of physical and computational system elements and will benefit from foundational research in CPS spanning multiple disciplines and domains. Based on recent research results, anticipated results from continued research investments, and ongoing scanning of scientific and engineering advances, the FHWA EAR program has identified two areas where a coordinating investment with NSF would best advance both the fundamental science of CPS and speed the application of scientific advances into the highway industry: enabling technology and scaling cyber-physical highway systems. FHWA particularly has interest in foundational technologies that can accelerate innovation, reduce cost, and lower risk of technology adoption.
Enabling Technology:
FHWA has interest in research and development of new enabling technology that provides improved safety, mobility, and energy conservation in the development and operation of the highway system. Enabling technologies for highway transportation must be scalable, reliable, adaptable, and secure while also being cost-effective. While initial deployment of new technologies may begin in specific corridors, the technologies need to be scalable, reliable, affordable, and adaptable to enable nationwide deployment as well as operation over periods of 30 or more years.
Scaling Cyber-Physical Highway Systems:
FHWA is interested in new research methods to test connected vehicle and highway systems at larger scales. This may include new simulation methods, hardware-in-the-loop or hybrid physical and simulated environments, methods for connecting and exploiting existing smaller scale testbeds, and/or methods for safe and effective real world or "living laboratory" testing. More importantly, new methods are needed to test the safety and efficacy of large-scale, complex systems. Such methods need to account for a combination of legacy equipment and new systems. While people may update mobile devices every two years, the average age of private motor vehicles is now over 10 years. Roadway signals, infrastructure sensors, truck trailers, and other elements of the highway system have even longer lifecycles before being replaced. Accordingly, new systems need to work with existing equipment while anticipating future technologies.
FHWA anticipates research teams may wish to take advantage of expertise, facilities, and equipment located at the Saxton Transportation Operations Laboratory or the Human Factors Laboratory at the Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC) in McLean, Virginia. Research Teams may contact the Federal laboratory manager to discuss possible access to laboratory facilities that could be included in a proposal. Discussions with, and inclusion of, research conducted at the Saxton Transportation Operations Laboratory does not guarantee acceptance of the proposal. Proposals that include experiments at TFHRC do not need to include FHWA associated costs, which will be funded separately.
FHWA interests extend further through a partnership with the DOT's Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO), which seeks CPS research in the area of connected automated vehicles.
Connected Automated Vehicles:
The ITS JPO is planning research to better understand how to blend Connected Vehicle (CV) technology and autonomous vehicle systems. CV technology has the potential to inform vehicles and drivers about the dynamics, movements, and intents of other vehicles in their surroundings. The ITS JPO is coordinating research activities across the DOT, exploring the role of CPS applications across multiple transportation modes and networks. CPS technology research challenges include: CPS data acquisition, quality assurance and integration; data and information analytics; and decision making, including electronic control systems. There is also a need to detect, locate, and remediate degraded components of connected automated vehicle systems. CPS technology challenges are focused on understanding the development and integration of the essential building blocks and capabilities needed to allow automated vehicle systems to perform safely and effectively on public roadways using functionality not traditionally available to autonomous sensors alone.
CPS research proposals should consider the potential use of ITS JPO Connected Vehicle (CV) Testbeds. The CV testbed and associated interoperable testbed environments constitute real-world, operational testbeds. They provide supporting vehicles, infrastructure, and equipment to serve the needs of public- and private-sector testing and certification activities, including CPS research. The testbeds are enablers to accelerating innovative research and transition to practice, as they establish multiple locations as part of one connected system that can support continued research, testing, and demonstration of connected vehicle concepts, standards, applications, and innovative products. Test environments may also serve as precursors or foundations for state and local deployments using CV technologies.
For more information, see the DOT program plan for automation, CV Program, and CV testbeds.
All sponsor-targeted proposals:
Those proposals that are targeting a specific agency sponsorship should indicate so in the last line of the last box of the Project Summary, e.g., "Requested funding agency:" followed by that agency's abbreviated name, i.e., "NSF," "DHS," or "DOT," but only if the proposers have previously communicated with a program officer from that agency and received permission or instruction to do so. Those not so designated will be considered for funding by all of the joint sponsoring agencies.
II.D Transition to Practice (TTP) Option
Proposals for Breakthrough, Synergy, or Frontier projects may include a Transition to Practice (TTP) option. Proposed activities under the TTP option MUST NOT be described in the project description, and instead MUST be described in a supplemental document of no more than five pages. The TTP option is meant to support the leveraging of proposed research activities and ideas whose outcomes at the end of the award are capable of being implemented, matured, applied, experimentally useable, or demonstrated as a useable capability. This option should describe how successful research results are to be further developed, matured and experimentally deployed in organizations or industries, including in networks and end systems. Any software developed in this program area is required to be released under an open source license listed by the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org/) (this requirement is specific to the TTP option supplement). Proposals with a TTP option may exceed the above-stated maxima by up to $167,000 for Breakthrough projects, $400,000 for Synergy projects, and $1,000,000 for Frontier projects.
(Note: The TTP option is an optional component, above and beyond the requirement for experimentation on an actual cyber-physical system for projects of greater than or equal to three years duration.)
Proposals submitted with a TTP option will be evaluated with careful attention to the following:
- The expected impact on the deployed environment described in the supplemental document;
- The extent to which the value of the proposed CPS research and development is described in the context of a needed capability and potential impact;
- The feasibility, utility, and interoperability of the capability in its proposed operational role;
- A plan that addresses in its goals and milestones the demonstration and evaluation of a working system in the target environment;
- Tangible metrics described to evaluate the success of the capabilities developed, and the steps necessary to take the system from prototype status to production use; and
- The appropriateness of the budget for the option. The supplemental document should explain how the additional budget will be used to execute the option.
If you submit a Transition to Practice (TTP) option, the title should begin with the acronym that indicates the relevant perspectives followed by a colon, then "TTP Option" followed by a colon, then the project class followed by a colon, and then the title. For example, a CPS Frontier project with the TTP option should have a title of the form CPS: TTP Option: Frontiers: Title.
II.E CPS PI Meetings
The CPS program is aiming to build a new research and education community. In this spirit, the program plans to host PI meetings every year with participation from all funded projects and other representatives from the research community, government and industry. The program also sponsors the CPS Virtual Organization (CPS-VO), a broad community of interest for CPS researchers, developers, and educators. Principal investigators are expected to participate in the PI meetings, and are encouraged to use the CPS-VO to coordinate activities and artifacts along with research results.
For all awards, one or more project representatives (PI/co-PI/senior researcher, or NSF-approved replacement) must attend EVERY PI meeting held throughout the duration of the grant.
II.F Embedded REU Supplements
The Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) solicitation (NSF 13-542) gives instructions for embedding a request for a REU Supplement in a proposal. Proposers are invited to embed a request for a REU Supplement in the typical amount for one year only according to normal CISE guidelines (detailed below). The amounts of the REU Supplements do not count against the budget limitations described in this solicitation.
For single investigator projects, CISE REU supplemental funding requests should typically be for no more than two students for one year. Research teams funded through multi-investigator projects may request support for a larger number of students, commensurate with the size and nature of their projects. For example, for projects involving four principal investigators, REU supplemental funding is typically requested for about four undergraduates for one year.
As a guide for budget development, CISE REU supplement support averages about $8,000 per student per year; this guideline is neither a floor nor a ceiling. As described in the solicitation, indirect costs (F&A) are not allowed on Participant Support Costs in REU Site or REU Supplement budgets. Note that the REU solicitation's longstanding "administrative allowance" of 25% of the participant support stipend amount in lieu of indirect costs has been discontinued.
REU stipend support is one way to retain talented students in undergraduate education, while providing meaningful research experiences. The participation of students from groups underrepresented in computing -- underrepresented minorities, women and persons with disabilities -- is strongly encouraged. Underrepresented minorities include Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Native Pacific Islanders. Other factors influencing the funding decision regarding the supplement include the number of REU requests submitted by any one principal investigator across all of her/his CISE grants.
Investigators are encouraged to refer to the program solicitation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU): Sites and Supplements (NSF 13-542) for more information concerning submission requirements. For questions, contact one of the Cognizant Program Officers listed in this solicitation.
III. AWARD INFORMATION
All awards made under this solicitation by NSF, DHS, and DOT will be as grants or cooperative agreements or other contract vehicles as determined by the supporting agency.
Upon conclusion of the review process, meritorious research proposals may be recommended for funding by one of the participating agencies, determined at the option of the agencies, not the proposer. Subsequent grant administration procedures will be in accordance with the individual policies of the awarding agency, and may require submission of a revised proposal that meets the administrative requirements of the funding agency. (See section V.B. for additional information on agency-specific processes.)
IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
Who May Submit Proposals:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
- Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
- Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.
Who May Serve as PI:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2
An individual can participate as PI, co-PI, or Senior Personnel on no more than two proposals submitted in response to this solicitation.
These eligibility constraints will be strictly enforced in order to treat everyone fairly and consistently. In the event that an individual exceeds the two-proposal limit for this solicitation, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on earliest date and time of proposal submission (i.e., the first two proposals received will be accepted and the remainder will be returned without review). No exceptions will be made.
Additionally, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation may not duplicate or be substantially similar to other proposals concurrently under consideration by other NSF, DHS or DOT programs. Duplicate or substantially similar proposals will be returned without review, including those substantially similar to previously declined proposals without revisions to address concerns raised by reviewers.
Additional Eligibility Info:
The CPS program encourages applications from groups eligible to compete as Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI; see NSF 00-144) or Grants Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI; see NSF 12-513) under the CPS program deadlines.
In addition, the organization limit above does not preclude eligible organizations from submitting proposals that involve participation of for-profit corporations as subcontractors, unfunded collaborators, contributors, or GOALI partners.
V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.
- Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
- Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.
Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will check for required sections of the full proposal, in accordance with Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) instructions described in Chapter II.C.2. The GPG requires submission of: Project Summary; Project Description; References Cited; Biographical Sketch(es); Budget; Budget Justification; Current and Pending Support; Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources; Data Management Plan; and Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, if applicable. If a required section is missing, FastLane will not accept the proposal.
Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions. If the solicitation instructions do not require a GPG-required section to be included in the proposal, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation." Doing so will enable FastLane to accept your proposal.
Please note that per guidance in the GPG, the Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, you can decide where to include this section within the Project Description.
The following information supplements the guidelines and requirements in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide:
Proposal Titles: Proposal titles must indicate the CPS program, followed by a colon, then the project type, followed by a colon, then the title of the project. For example, a CPS Frontier project proposal title would be CPS: Frontier: Title. Titles of collaborative proposals should be prepared as above, but should also include "Collaborative Research" followed by a colon before the title of the project. For example, the title of each proposal for a collaborative set of proposals for a Synergy project would be CPS: Synergy: Collaborative Research: Title. Proposals that include a Transition to Practice (TTP) option should include "TTP Option" followed by a colon immediately after identifying as CPS. For example, a CPS Frontier project with the TTP option should have a title of the form CPS: TTP Option: Frontiers: Title. Proposals from PIs in institutions that have RUI (Research in Undergraduate Institutions) eligibility should also include "RUI" followed by a colon before the project title, for example, CPS: Synergy: RUI: Title. Similarly, GOALI (Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry) proposals should include "GOALI" followed by a colon as the last identifier before the project title.
Project Summary: At the top of the Overview text box, enter the title of the CPS project, the name of the lead PI, and the name of the lead institution. Provide an overview description of the CPS project, including the intellectual merit and broader impacts of the proposed work. This description should explicitly identify how the CPS research target area(s) described in section II.A above (i.e., Science of Cyber-Physical Systems; Technology for Cyber-Physical Systems; and/or Engineering of Cyber-Physical Systems) are addressed in the proposed project. Proposals that seek to address a next-generation CPS application in conjunction with research in one or more of the three target areas should also specify the target application. At the end, include a prioritized list of keywords and CPS research target area(s) that characterize the project. In separate statements, provide a summary of the intellectual merit of the proposed project in the "intellectual merit" box, and broader impacts in the "broader impacts" box. Those proposals that are targeting a specific agency sponsorship should indicate so in the last line of the last box, e.g., "Requested funding agency:" followed by that agency's abbreviated name, i.e., "NSF," "DHS," or "DOT," but only if the proposers have previously communicated with a program officer from that agency and received permission or instruction to do so. Those not so designated will be considered for funding by all of the joint sponsoring agencies.
Project Description: Describe the research and education activities to be undertaken in up to 15 pages for Breakthrough and Synergy proposals and up to 20 pages for Frontier proposals.
Proposals should explicitly identify the CPS research target area(s) being addressed in the proposed project in the Project Description. Proposals to address a next-generation CPS application in conjunction with research in one or more of the three target areas should also specify the target application in the Project Description.
All proposals are expected to:
- Describe how the project goals and research and education outcomes will contribute to the realization of the CPS program goal and vision;
- Explain their specific contribution to CPS science and technology;
- Specify how the project research will contribute to one or more of the three CPS research target areas;
- Explain how the project research fits the Program Description for the type of proposal (Breakthrough, Synergy, or Frontier);
- Present a plan to integrate research outcomes into education and more broadly advance education in CPS;
- Describe the roles, responsibilities, and expertise of the team members, how they cover the set of skills needed to realize the project goals, and how their interactions will contribute to integration across core CPS disciplinary areas;
- Include a plan for validation of the research by experimentation and prototyping;
- Provide plans for disseminating the research and education outcomes in a manner that enables the CPS research community and helps scientists and engineers to use the results in ways that go beyond traditional academic publications; and
- If the proposal involves a collaboration spanning multiple institutions, provide a compelling rationale for the multi-institutional structure of the project and an explanation of how effective collaboration will be assured.
In addition, for projects of more than three years, the validation plan must include experimentation on an actual cyber-physical system.
Supplementary Documents: In the Supplementary Documents section, upload the following:
(1) A list of Project Personnel and Partner Institutions (Note: In collaborative proposals, only the lead institution should provide this information):
Provide current, accurate information for all personnel and institutions involved in the project. NSF staff will use this information in the merit review process to manage conflicts of interest. The list must include all PIs, Co-PIs, Senior Personnel, paid/unpaid Consultants or Collaborators, Subawardees, Postdocs, project-level advisory committee members, and writers of letters of support. If the project includes a Transitions option, this list must include personnel and institutions involved in the option. This list should be numbered and include (in this order) Full name, Organization(s), and Role in the project, with each item separated by a semi-colon. Each person listed should start a new numbered line. For example:
- Mary Smith; XYZ University; PI
- John Jones; University of PQR; Senior Personnel
- Jane Brown; XYZ University; Postdoc
- Bob Adams; ABC Inc.; Paid Consultant
- Mary White; Welldone Institution; Unpaid Collaborator
- Tim Green; ZZZ University; Subawardee
(2) A list of Collaborators (Note: In collaborative proposals, only the lead institution should provide this information):
Provide current, accurate information for all active or recent collaborators of personnel and institutions involved in the project. NSF staff will use this information in the merit review process to manage conflicts of interest. This list -- distinct from (1) above -- must include all active or recent Collaborators of all personnel involved with the proposed project. Collaborators include any individual with whom any member of the project team -- including PIs, Co-PIs, Senior Personnel, paid/unpaid Consultants or Collaborators, Subawardees, Postdocs, and project-level advisory committee members -- has collaborated on a project, book, article, report, or paper within the preceding 48 months; or co-edited a journal, compendium, or conference proceedings within the preceding 24 months. This list should be numbered and include (in this order) Full name and Organization(s), with each item separated by a semi-colon. Each person listed should start a new numbered line.
- Mary Smith; XYZ University
- John Jones; University of PQR
- Jane Brown; XYZ University
- Bob Adams; ABC Inc.
- Mary White; Welldone Institution
- Tim Green; ZZZ University
(3) Justification for Breakthrough Proposals:
Proposals for Breakthrough projects are required to have a statement of up to one page that persuasively reasons why the research to be undertaken, if successful, would significantly change the field of cyber-physical systems. Proposals that include justifications exceeding one page in length will be returned without review.
(4) Collaboration Plans for Breakthrough and Synergy (if applicable) as well as Frontier Proposals:
Since the success of collaborative research efforts are known to depend on thoughtful coordination mechanisms that regularly bring together the various participants of the project, all Breakthrough and Synergy proposals that include more than one investigator and all Frontier proposals must include a Collaboration Plan of up to 2 pages. The length and degree of detail provided in the Collaboration Plan should be commensurate with the complexity of the proposed project. Where appropriate, the Collaboration Plan might include: 1) the specific roles of the project participants in all organizations involved; 2) information on how the project will be managed across all the investigators, institutions, and/or disciplines; 3) identification of the specific coordination mechanisms that will enable cross-investigator, cross-institution, and/or cross-discipline scientific integration (e.g., yearly workshops, graduate student exchange, project meetings at conferences, use of the grid for videoconferences, software repositories, etc.), and 4) specific references to the budget line items that support collaboration and coordination mechanisms.
In the case of Frontier projects, the collaboration plan should also: 1) identify a single individual who will be responsible for executing the collaboration plan and the amount of the budget that will be allocated for project administration; and 2) include a kick-off meeting of all participants in coordination with the NSF.
If a Frontier proposal, or a Breakthrough or Synergy proposal with more than one investigator, does not include a Collaboration Plan of up to 2 pages, that proposal will be returned without review.
(5) Education and Outreach Plan for Frontier Proposals
All Frontier projects must include an Education and Outreach Plan of up to three pages. This plan, separate from the Project Description, should describe educational approaches that overcome traditional curricula and better prepare students for careers in cyber-physical systems practice and research. The plan should also address the goals of achieving impact on educational practices beyond the participating institutions, and expanding the CPS community. The CPS program is interested in ideas that address the underrepresentation of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in CPS science, technology, and engineering, and that stimulate interest in cyber-physical systems at the K-12 level and in the public at large.
If a Frontier proposal does not include an Education and Outreach Plan of up to 3 pages, that proposal will be returned without review.
(6) Transition to Practice (TTP) Option Proposals:
Projects may include a Transition to Practice (TTP) option. Proposals submitted with a TTP option must include a supplemental document of up to five pages in order for the option to be considered for funding. This document should describe how successful proposed research results are to be further developed, matured, and experimentally deployed in organizations, networks and end systems. It should also include an option budget that indicates what additional funds would be needed to carry out the TTP option. This budget for the TTP option may be no larger than $167,000 for Breakthrough projects, no larger than $400,000 for Synergy projects, and no larger than $1,000,000 for Frontier projects.
Note that the budget for the TTP option must be specified separately within the five-page supplement. In addition, it must also be incorporated into the budget sheets for the overall proposal.
(7) Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan (if applicable):
Each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. 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, irrespective of whether they reside at the submitting organization, any subawardee organization, or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted collaborative project. Please be advised that if required, FastLane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing a Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan. See Chapter II.C.2.j of the GPG for further information about the implementation of this requirement. Proposals that include Postdoctoral Mentoring Plans exceeding one page in length will be returned without review.
(8) Data Management Plan (required):
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 Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter II.C.2.j for full policy implementation.
For additional information see http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp.
For specific guidance for proposals submitted to the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) see http://www.nsf.gov/cise/cise_dmp.jsp.
In the case of CPS, all projects are strongly encouraged to share results, including software, testbeds, and other artifacts, with the CPS research community through the CPS Virtual Organization (CPS-VO). Plans for sharing should be described in the Data Management Plan. Frontier project proposals are required to include a plan for such sharing, along with transition to practice, involving potential end users and stakeholders.
Proposals that include Data Management Plans exceeding two pages in length will be returned without review.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited
Budget Preparation Instructions:
Budgets for all projects must include funding for one or more project representatives (PI/co-PI/senior researchers and graduate students) to attend each CPS PI Meeting during the proposed lifetime of the award (per Section II.E above). For budget preparation purposes, PIs should assume these meetings will be held in the fall of each year in the Washington, DC, area.
C. Due Dates
- Submission Window Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
May 19, 2014 - June 02, 2014
December 01, 2014 - December 15, 2014
December 1 - December 15, Annually Thereafter
D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.
Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.
VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as Exhibit III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.
Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Empowering the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation: NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the core strategies in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the variety of learning perspectives.
Another core strategy in support of NSF's mission is broadening opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria
The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.
1. Merit Review Principles
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
- All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
- NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
- Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.
2. Merit Review Criteria
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (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:
- What is the potential for the proposed activity to
- Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
- Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
- To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
- 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?
- How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
- Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.
Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
All Breakthrough proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the one-page supplementary document articulating reasons why the research to be undertaken, if successful, would significantly change the field of cyber-physical systems.
All Breakthrough and Synergy project proposals with more than one investigator or institution, and all Frontier project proposals will be evaluated on the strength of their Collaboration Plans.
All Frontier project proposals will also be evaluated on the strength of their Education and Outreach Plans.
Proposals submitted with a Transition to Practice (TTP) option will be evaluated with careful attention to the following:
- The expected impact on the deployed environment described in the supplemental document;
- The extent to which the value of the proposed CPS research and development is described in the context of a needed capability and potential impact;
- The feasibility, utility, and interoperability of the capability in its proposed operational role;
- An option plan that addresses in its goals and milestones the demonstration and evaluation of a working system in the target environment;
- Tangible metrics described to evaluate the success of the capabilities developed, and the steps necessary to take the system from prototype status to production use; and
- The appropriateness of the budget for the option plan. The supplemental document should explain how the additional budget will be used to execute the option plan.
B. Review and Selection Process
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, or Reverse Site Review.
Review and Selection Process:
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by the process below.
A uniform review process will be conducted by NSF for all proposals received responding to this program solicitation. Multiple review panels of experts in the field and additional ad hoc reviewers as needed will be assembled. The number and topical clustering of panels will be determined according to the number and topical areas of the proposals received. Staff members from the other supporting agencies will be assigned to work cooperatively with NSF staff on each panel, as appropriate to the category of funding requested. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. The Program Officer(s) assigned to manage a given proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation. Upon conclusion of the review process, meritorious proposals may be recommended for funding by one of the participating agencies, the choice to be determined at the option of the agencies, not the proposer. Subsequent grant administration procedures will be in accordance with the individual policies of the awarding agency.
NSF Process: Those proposals selected for funding by NSF will be handled in accordance with standard NSF procedures. This process begins with NSF drafting and releasing the joint-agency solicitation, which includes program requirements.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.
After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.
Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
DHS and DOT Process: Applications selected for funding by DHS and/or DOT will be awarded by NSF using funds transferred from DHS and/or DOT, respectively.
VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
A. Notification of the Award
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)
B. Award Conditions
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
Special Award Conditions:
Designated CPS project representatives (PI/co-PI/senior researchers and graduate students) must attend annual CPS PI meetings and participate in collaborative activities with the CPS-VO.
DHS and DOT Award Administration and Conditions:
Applications selected for funding by DHS and/or DOT will be awarded by NSF using funds transferred from DHS and/or DOT, and will thus follow NSF's award conditions described above.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). Within 90 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.
Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.
More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
DHS and DOT: Applications selected for funding by DHS and/or DOT will be awarded by NSF using funds transferred from DHS and/or DOT, respectively, and will thus follow NSF's award conditions described above.
VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS
Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
-
David Corman, Program Director, CISE/CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8754, email: dcorman@nsf.gov
-
Radhakisan Baheti, Program Director, ENG/ECCS, 525, telephone: (703) 292-8339, email: rbaheti@nsf.gov
-
Theodore P. Baker, Program Director, CISE/CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8608, email: tbaker@nsf.gov
-
Bruce Kramer, Program Director, ENG/CMMI, 545, telephone: (703) 292-5348, email: bkramer@nsf.gov
-
Bruce Hamilton, Program Director, ENG/CBET, 565, telephone: (703) 292-7066, email: bhamilto@nsf.gov
-
Frank Olken, Program Director, CISE/IIS, 1125, telephone: (703) 292-4767, email: folken@nsf.gov
-
Phillip Regalia, Program Director, CISE/CCF, 1115, telephone: (703) 292-8910, email: pregalia@nsf.gov
-
Sylvia Spengler, Program Director, CISE/IIS, 1125, telephone: (703) 292-8930, email: sspengle@nsf.gov
-
Kevin Thompson, Program Director, CISE/ACI, 1145, telephone: (703) 292-4220, email: kthompso@nsf.gov
-
Ralph Wachter, Program Director, CISE/CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: rwachter@nsf.gov
-
Daniel Massey, Program Director, DHS S&T, telephone: 202-254-0908, email: daniel.massey@hq.dhs.gov
-
David Kuehn, Program Manager, DOT/FHWA, telephone: (202) 493-3414, email: david.kuehn@dot.gov
-
Kevin Dopart, Program Director, DOT/ITS JPO, telephone: 202-366-8034, email: kevin.dopart@dot.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
- FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
- Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.
IX. OTHER INFORMATION
The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_id=USNSF_179.
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA):
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):
ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.
NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
|
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov
|
PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
Resilient Interdependent Infrastructure Processes and Systems (RIPS)
Program Solicitation
|
|
National Science Foundation |
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
March 19, 2014
Type I and Type II Proposals
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES
INFORMATION WEBCAST: The EFRI Office will hold a information webcast on Tuesday January 21st at 1pm to discuss the RIPS program and answer questions about this solicitation. More details of the webcast will be posted on the EFRI website, www.nsf.gov/eng/efri, as they become available.
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
General Information
Program Title:
Resilient Interdependent Infrastructure Processes and Systems (RIPS)
Synopsis of Program:
Critical infrastructures are the mainstay of our nation's economy, security and health. These infrastructures are interdependent. For example, the electrical power system depends on the delivery of fuels to power generating stations through transportation services, the production of those fuels depends in turn on the use of electrical power, and those fuels are needed by the transportation services.
The goals of the Resilient Interdependent Infrastructure Processes and Systems (RIPS) solicitation are (1) to foster an interdisciplinary research community that discovers new knowledge for the design and operation of infrastructures as processes and services (2) to enhance the understanding and design of interdependent critical infrastructure systems (ICIs) and processes that provide essential goods and services despite disruptions and failures from any cause, natural, technological, or malicious, and (3) to create the knowledge for innovation in ICIs to advance society with new goods and services. The objectives of this solicitation are:
The RIPS solicitation seeks proposals with transformative ideas that will ensure ICIs services are effective, efficient, dependable, adaptable, resilient, safe, and secure. Successful proposals are expected to study multiple infrastructures focusing on them as interdependent systems that deliver services, enabling a new interdisciplinary paradigm in infrastructure research. Proposals that do not broadly integrate across the cyber-physical, engineering and social, behavioral and economic (SBE) sciences may be returned without review. Projects supported under this solicitation may undertake the collection of new data or use existing curated data depending on the category of award, and must recognize that a primary objective is integrative predictive modeling that can use the data to validate the models and which can be integrated into decision making.
- Create theoretical frameworks and multidisciplinary computational models of interdependent infrastructure systems, processes and services, capable of analytical prediction of complex behaviors, in response to system and policy changes.
- Synthesize new approaches to increase resilience, interoperations, performance, and readiness in ICIs.
- Understand organizational, social, psychological, legal, political and economic obstacles to improving ICI's, and identifying strategies for overcoming those obstacles.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
-
Konstantinos P. Triantis, ENG/CMMI, telephone: (703) 292-7088, email: ktrianti@nsf.gov
-
Bruce K. Hamilton, ENG/CBET, telephone: (703) 292-7066, email: bhamilto@nsf.gov
-
Daniel Hammel, SBE/BCS, telephone: (703) 292-4995, email: dhammel@nsf.gov
-
Angelos D. Keromytis, CISE/CNS, telephone: (703) 292-8061, email: adkeromy@nsf.gov
-
Robert E. O'Connor, SBE/SES, telephone: (703) 292-7263, email: roconnor@nsf.gov
-
Zhi Tian, ENG/ECCS, telephone: (703) 292-2210, email: ztian@nsf.gov
-
Ralph Wachter, CISE/CNS, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: rwachter@nsf.gov
-
Dennis E. Wenger, ENG/CMMI, telephone: (703) 292-8606, email: dwenger@nsf.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
- 47.041 --- Engineering
- 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
- 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: 20
Two categories of awards are anticipated for this solicitation. The number of awards in each category will be dependent on the overall mix of proposals and the degree to which they meet the solicitation goals, Merit Review Criteria and Solicitation Specific Review Criteria. We anticipate up to 11 Type 1 awards and up to 9 Type 2 awards, dependent on the availability of funds.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $15,000,000
Types 1 Awards: Projects will have a duration of 1-2 years for a maximum of $300,000 for each project in total direct and indirect costs.
Type 2 Awards: Projects will be of 3 years in duration and in the range of $1 to $2.5 million maximum for each project in total direct and indirect costs.
Eligibility Information
Who May Submit Proposals:
The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter I, Section E.
Who May Serve as PI:
Because this program is meant to support interdisciplinary research, a minimum of three investigators is required per project, the Principal Investigator (PI) and two or more co-Investigators from the lead or participating institutions who are eligible to serve as PI or co-PI on NSF proposals submitted through their respective institutions. In order to ensure an interdisciplinary approach to studying ICIs principal investigators should represent three or more distinct disciplinary areas as described in this solicitation (computer science; engineering; social, economic, and behavioral sciences). Additional PIs or senior personnel may be added to cover other interdisciplinary needs of the project. The appropriateness of the research team's disciplinary composition and expertise will be factors in the merit review of the proposals (see Additional Review Criteria section).
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2
An individual may appear as a Principal Investigator (PI), co-PI, other senior personnel or investigator on one Type 1, and one Type 2 RIPS proposal for FY 2014. This limitation includes proposals submitted by a lead organization, any sub-award submitted as part of a proposal, or any collaborative proposal. All proposals and collaborative proposals that include a PI who does not meet these limits will be returned without review.
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
- Letters of Intent: Not Applicable
- Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable
- Full Proposals:
- Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
- Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)
B. Budgetary Information
- Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
- Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable
- Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
C. Due Dates
- Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
March 19, 2014
Type I and Type II Proposals
Proposal Review Information Criteria
Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Award Administration Information
Award Conditions: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Introduction
- Program Description
- Award Information
- Eligibility Information
- Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
- NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
- Award Administration Information
- Agency Contacts
- Other Information
- Appendix
I. INTRODUCTION
The economic competitiveness and societal well-being of the United States are dependent upon the affordability, availability, quality and resilience of the services that its infrastructures provide. These infrastructures in turn are dependent on each other for their function. For example, the electrical power system depends on the delivery of fuels to power generating stations through transportation services, the production of those fuels depends in turn on the use of electrical power, and those fuels are needed by the transportation services. The disruption of electrical power impacts water, emergency services, finance, government services among others. All of these services are in turn dependent on communication and control services provided by the cyber-physical infrastructure, that has intranet and Internet services at its core, and which cannot function without power. This creates a complex set of interdependencies between infrastructure services that are challenging to conceptualize, understand, model and design across multiple scales.
Infrastructures are pervasive, often highly decentralized and dynamic with interlocking parts - functionally and contractually. Infrastructures despite seeming permanent and durable are as strongly dependent on other infrastructures for operations in a manner that forms an ecology of systems, people, and technologies. This reimagines infrastructures as processes delivering services. Advances in materials, electronics, and computing are reshaping the ecology at scale. The rapid merging of cyberspace with traditional infrastructures has created new functionality and opportunities while simultaneously exporting the malignancies of cyberspace too. Similarly, as the importance and interdependency of these infrastructures grow, so does the societal pressure from nations, transnational corporations, and even individuals to control that growth.
Infrastructures and their interlocking connections are subject to disturbances from natural, technological and malicious sources generated at different timescales and with different intensities. How their services are impacted, both in terms of initial loss of quality and the trajectory of service restoration, and how people respond to this loss of service caused by these disturbances and/or day-to-day operations, is central to their long term viability. These features of infrastructure response to disturbances have broadly been labeled its resiliency, including the notion that the components may autonomously adapt and dynamically reconfigure during a disturbance to restore the lost functionality. Conceived as a process, infrastructure resiliency can be achieved by a myriad of strategies in addition to simple repair and replacement. Given the interdependent nature of infrastructures, their collective resiliency is a complex phenomenon that makes the design, management and control of ICI services in the economy extremely challenging but necessary.
In order to address this broad and integrative topic of ICIs design and behavior, we require the mapping of infrastructure components and processes to services, and a holistic, predictive understanding of interdependent critical infrastructures, including the human component of service production and consumption, and a new science of system design. In this context, an infrastructure is defined as a network of man-made systems and processes that function cooperatively and synergistically to produce and distribute a continuous flow of essential goods and services.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The goal of the Resilient Interdependent Infrastructure Processes and Systems (RIPS) solicitation is to enhance the understanding and design of interdependent critical infrastructure systems and processes that provide essential goods and services despite disruptions and failures from any cause, natural, technological or malicious, and provide opportunity to innovate in ICIs to enrich society with new goods and services. There are currently eighteen critical infrastructures defined by the Department of Homeland Security and some of these are highly aggregated classifications, for example energy, of different essential infrastructures, such as power generation and distribution, and natural gas production and pipeline distribution.
Studies that advance the development of theoretical frameworks and predictive understanding are particularly encouraged. Successful proposals in all categories are expected to broadly integrate across the engineering, SBE and cyber-physical sciences, enabling a new interdisciplinary paradigm in infrastructure services research to develop theoretical frameworks for a predictive understanding.
From a computer science perspective the major transformation in the ICIs of the past few decades is the rapid adoption and pervasiveness of computing, communications and information communications technologies. This transformation has created new capabilities for awareness, autonomy, interoperability, cooperation, and control among the ICIs and is reshaping relationships among ICIs to engineering and society. ICIs composed of deeply interconnected cyber-physical-social systems promise significantly improved service resiliency at scale against all hazards - from nature, technology, organizational, regulatory, and cyberspace. Unfortunately, connections with cyberspace also open ICIs to new classes of threats and vulnerabilities. The challenge is to understand the computational foundations of resiliency for ICIs in the expanding design space of critical ICI services and technology in engineering, social, and computer sciences that greatly benefit society.
From an engineering perspective the understanding of the interdependencies in infrastructure systems continues to be a major challenge both in terms of defining appropriate theoretical constructs and in terms of defining and implementing appropriate interventions given current fiscal realities. The research has focused primarily on understanding of the physical interdependencies. Many times this understanding is informed by cyber-physical technologies. There have also been long standing efforts to integrate social and behavioral considerations (e.g. in the disaster literature). A systematic consideration of the three perspectives (engineering, cyber-physical, social/behavioral/economic) in an integrated fashion, however, will help provide a deeper understanding of what is meant by the interdependencies and the associated physical, information and social phenomena.
From a SBE science perspective the conceptualization of infrastructure systems as processes and services offers exciting opportunities for examining the relationships of social, economic, behavioral, psychological, geographic, policy and decision-science variables with engineering and cyber infrastructure elements. Social scientists and engineers have decades of experience in jointly examining the resilience of physical infrastructures to natural and technological hazards and extreme events. While such studies of resilience are welcome in this solicitation, this solicitation encourages research that integrates across SBE sciences, engineering and computer science disciplines and examines infrastructure systems and processes under normal conditions and over time. Individual, organizational, and community impacts upon the operation of infrastructure systems and processes, the roles of public policy and decision making in the provision of infrastructure services, and the spatial and economic factors that influence the performance of these processes are some of the many social science relevant investigations.
The interests include to:
- Understand the "systems ecology" of our interdependent infrastructures and services;
- Create conceptual frameworks or theories for understanding the processes and services of interdependent infrastructure systems from a multidisciplinary perspective;
- Test hypotheses and validating explanatory models through empirical work involving ICIs with either existing or newly collected data;
- Build multidisciplinary communities to address ICIs;
- Understand organizational, social, psychological, legal, political and economic obstacles to improving ICI's, and identifying resources and strategies for overcoming those obstacles;
- Understand human responses to the predicted performance of interdependent infrastructures;
- Improve control, integrity, and overall stability of services provided by ICIs;
- Explore the economics and governance of ICIs;
- Explore new multidisciplinary engineering approaches to increase; resilience, interoperability, performance, and readiness in ICIs;
- Expand the design space of alternatives, leveraging new interdependencies to increase resiliency to extreme conditions and future events;
- Determine the socio-economic value of new interdependencies of ICIs to meet societal demands;
- Create the knowledge that leads to innovative new ICI services and markets, facilitating transition to practice.
Some of the more frequently asked questions (FAQ's) that might arise for this solicitation are posed and answered in Section X. Appendix of this solicitation.
III. AWARD INFORMATION
Estimated Number of Awards: Two categories of awards are anticipated for this solicitation. The number of awards in each category will be dependent on the overall mix of proposals and the degree to which they meet the solicitation goals, Merit Review Criteria and Solicitation Specific Review Criteria. We anticipate up to 11 Type 1 awards and up to 9 Type 2 awards, dependent on the availability of funds.
Types 1 Awards: Theory, modeling, and metrics projects that will create the knowledge, methodologies and approaches to conceptualize and study interdependent infrastructures as processes and services. These awards are not intended for empirical testing of models or theories. These awards can also have the objective of team building that will help clarify the basic terminology, assumptions and premises that enable theories, model and metric formalizations for interdependent infrastructures as processes and services. Projects will have a duration of 1-2 years for a maximum of $300,000 for each project in total direct and indirect costs.
Type 2 Awards: These proposals support interdisciplinary research to conduct major new interdependent infrastructure research using empirical data. They are expected to include the creation of the knowledge, methodologies and approaches to conceptualize and study interdependent infrastructures as processes and services. Projects will be of 3 years in duration and in the range of $1 to $2.5million maximum for each project in total direct and indirect costs.
IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
Who May Submit Proposals:
The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter I, Section E.
Who May Serve as PI:
Because this program is meant to support interdisciplinary research, a minimum of three investigators is required per project, the Principal Investigator (PI) and two or more co-Investigators from the lead or participating institutions who are eligible to serve as PI or co-PI on NSF proposals submitted through their respective institutions. In order to ensure an interdisciplinary approach to studying ICIs principal investigators should represent three or more distinct disciplinary areas as described in this solicitation (computer science; engineering; social, economic, and behavioral sciences). Additional PIs or senior personnel may be added to cover other interdisciplinary needs of the project. The appropriateness of the research team's disciplinary composition and expertise will be factors in the merit review of the proposals (see Additional Review Criteria section).
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2
An individual may appear as a Principal Investigator (PI), co-PI, other senior personnel or investigator on one Type 1, and one Type 2 RIPS proposal for FY 2014. This limitation includes proposals submitted by a lead organization, any sub-award submitted as part of a proposal, or any collaborative proposal. All proposals and collaborative proposals that include a PI who does not meet these limits will be returned without review.
V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.
- Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
- Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.
Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will check for required sections of the full proposal, in accordance with Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) instructions described in Chapter II.C.2. The GPG requires submission of: Project Summary; Project Description; References Cited; Biographical Sketch(es); Budget; Budget Justification; Current and Pending Support; Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources; Data Management Plan; and Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, if applicable. If a required section is missing, FastLane will not accept the proposal.
Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions. If the solicitation instructions do not require a GPG-required section to be included in the proposal, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation." Doing so will enable FastLane to accept your proposal.
Please note that per guidance in the GPG, the Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, you can decide where to include this section within the Project Description.
Cover page:
The title of the proposed project should begin with the string "RIPS Type 1:" or "RIPS Type 2:" Make sure to identify this Solicitation Number on the Proposal Cover Sheet.
Supplementary Documents:
Management and Integration Plan: A Management and Integration Plan up to 3 pages in length is required for Type 2 proposals. The Management and Integration Plan should: a) list all Senior Personnel in the project (provide the last name, first name, and institution/organization); b) describe how the group effort will be coordinated; c) describe how the disciplinary components will be integrated; d) describe collaborations and partnerships and their integration with the project; e) describe how data, models, and ideas will be disseminated and shared with the research community and stakeholders. A clear time line of expected outcomes should be included, as well as plans for the integration of research and education.
Collaborators/Individuals with Conflicts of Interest (text-searchable PDF, in FastLane, under Additional Single Copy Documents). A list, in an alphabetized table, of the full names and institutional affiliations of all persons with potential conflicts of interest as specified in NSF's Grant Proposal Guide is required for both Type I and Type II proposals. For each PI, Co-PI, collaborator and other Senior Personnel, include all co-authors/editors and collaborators (within the past 48 months), all graduate advisors and advisees, and any other individuals or institutions with which the investigator has financial ties (please specify type). Include all PIs, Co-PIs, and other Senior Personnel from collaborative submissions to this solicitation.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited
Other Budgetary Limitations:
Participants are required to attend grantees meetings in year 1 for Type 1 and 2 proposals, and in year 3 for Type 2 proposals. Therefore, the budget category Domestic Travel in appropriate budget years should include costs of travel for up to four members of the research team (including the PI and a least one other senior investigator) to the Washington, D.C. area. The goals of these grantee meetings are (a) to provide an opportunity for investigators to share research approaches and results, (b) promote interaction of Type 1 and Type 2 awardees, and (c) to encourage discussion of the new types of interdisciplinary collaborations necessary for RIPS research.
This program will support the costs of U.S.-based scientists and their students. International collaborators are encouraged to seek support from their respective funding organizations. Funding guidelines for involving international collaborators allow the following expenses to be included in the NSF budget: 1) Travel expenses for U.S. scientists and students participating in exchange visits integral to the project; 2) Limited project-related expenses for international partners to engage in research activities while in the United States as project participants; 3) Project-related expenses for U.S. participants to engage in research activities while abroad.
Budgets for Research Platforms and Facilities: For projects utilizing NSF research platforms (e.g., ships, research aircraft, etc.) or other shared use facilities (e.g., field instrumentation, analytical or experimental facilities) PIs must prepare their budgets consistent with the customary practices of the facility. Costs that are not borne by the facility must be included in the budget cap of $300K for Type 1 proposals and $2.5M for Type 2 proposals. Non-NSF facilities costs should be included in the proposal budget and count toward the applicable budget cap.
C. Due Dates
- Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
March 19, 2014
Type I and Type II Proposals
D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.
Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.
VI. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as Exhibit III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.
Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Empowering the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation: NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the core strategies in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the variety of learning perspectives.
Another core strategy in support of NSF's mission is broadening opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria
The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.
1. Merit Review Principles
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
- All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
- NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
- Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.
2. Merit Review Criteria
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (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:
- What is the potential for the proposed activity to
- Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
- Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
- To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
- 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?
- How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
- Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.
Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
- Projects are required to be interdisciplinary incorporating cyber-physical, engineering and SBE sciences; they should be focused on how the study of critical infrastructures advances the intellectual foundations of these disciplines, and advance the state of the art in the system science of critical infrastructure processes. This breadth of interdisciplinary research is expected to be reflected in the Principal Investigators involved in this project.
-
These 3 questions reflect the major features of proposals responsive to the solicitation. (1) Does this address primarily address scientific research on interdependencies among critical infrastructures? (2) Does the research sufficiently reflect interests of the participating directorates? (3) Do the project personnel have the expertise to conduct necessary interdisciplinary research ?
- For Type II Proposals, Supplementary Documentation section, include a Management and Integration Plan. The Management and Integration Plan should: a) list all Senior Personnel in the project (provide the last name, first name, and institution/organization); b) describe how the group effort will be coordinated; c) describe how the disciplinary components will be integrated; d) describe collaborations and partnerships and their integration with the project; e) describe how data, models, and ideas will be disseminated and shared with the research community and stakeholders. A clear time line of expected outcomes should be included, as well as plans for the integration of research and education.
B. Review and Selection Process
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.
After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.
Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
A. Notification of the Award
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)
B. Award Conditions
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
Special Award Conditions:
At least one PI from a Type I and Type II grant will be expected to attend a PI meeting at the end of the first year of the project. At least one PI from each Type II grant will be expected to attend a PI meeting at the end of the third year of the project. Travel costs for these meetings should be included in the budget.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). Within 90 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.
Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.
More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS
Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
-
Konstantinos P. Triantis, ENG/CMMI, telephone: (703) 292-7088, email: ktrianti@nsf.gov
-
Bruce K. Hamilton, ENG/CBET, telephone: (703) 292-7066, email: bhamilto@nsf.gov
-
Daniel Hammel, SBE/BCS, telephone: (703) 292-4995, email: dhammel@nsf.gov
-
Angelos D. Keromytis, CISE/CNS, telephone: (703) 292-8061, email: adkeromy@nsf.gov
-
Robert E. O'Connor, SBE/SES, telephone: (703) 292-7263, email: roconnor@nsf.gov
-
Zhi Tian, ENG/ECCS, telephone: (703) 292-2210, email: ztian@nsf.gov
-
Ralph Wachter, CISE/CNS, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: rwachter@nsf.gov
-
Dennis E. Wenger, ENG/CMMI, telephone: (703) 292-8606, email: dwenger@nsf.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
- FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
- Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.
IX. OTHER INFORMATION
The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_id=USNSF_179.
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.
ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.
NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
|
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov
|
PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
X. APPENDIX
FAQ's
1. Question: What is meant by an infrastructure?
Answer: Infrastructures are defined as networks of systems and processes that function collaboratively and synergistically to produce and distribute a continuous flow of essential goods and services.
2. Question: Does an infrastructure system that I wish to study have to appear on the list of critical infrastructures as defined by the Department of Homeland Security?
Answer: No it does not have to appear on the list, but it must conform to the definition given of critical infrastructure: "the assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof." You must be able to describe your infrastructure system according to the definition provided in the answer to Question 1 and this definition.
3. Question: Does an infrastructure system have to have the same extent or scale as those listed on the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) list of critical infrastructures?
Answer: No, an infrastructure system might constitute a subsystem of the infrastructures as defined by in the NIPP. The NIPP, https://www.dhs.gov/national-infrastructure-protection-plan defines 18 critical infrastructures,http://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sectors, several of which are the combination of multiple separate processes and services, such as:
- Energy, which includes the production and distribution of multiple energy carriers such as natural gas, coal, refined oil products, and electricity,
- transportation, which includes providing mobility to people and goods through combinations of air, rail, road, water-borne modes,
- telecommunications, which includes landline and mobile telephony, GPS signaling, internet and intranets, and associated data management and computing services;
- water, which includes the sourcing, storage, processing and distribution of water, and the recovery, processing, reuse and disposal of waste water.
It would be acceptable to study, for example, the interdependencies between certain subsystems of the energy infrastructure, the interdependencies of energy subsystems with telecommunications through an intranet, the delivery and customization of demand management strategies for different energy carriers through the internet, and water use for cooling and different energy carriers. You might also study the interdependencies of emergency services upon power, transportation, communication and water availability. The goal is to isolate an appropriate study scope to enable as rich a set of integrative questions to be addressed across disciplinary boundaries as possible, and to advance the study of infrastructures as services.
4. Question: Do the infrastructures we study have to be at the national scale?
Answer: You may study infrastructures at smaller scales than that of the nation or region as long as they constitute parts of the critical infrastructures defined above. For example, infrastructure interdependencies of communication, energy, and water can be seen at the scale of a building, neighborhood or city, as well as at a regional or national one. The questions and research outcomes should enable progress in understanding interdependency and resiliency across a broad range of scales, and very specific results on a particular location, that cannot be generalized, will be of limited value to this solicitation.
5. Question: What is meant by cyber-physical systems (CPS)?
Answer: A cyber-physical system is an interconnected network of cooperating sub-systems and devices with essential computational and physical characteristics that collectively can exercise purposeful control of a system. Cyber-physical systems include, for example, but are not limited to, medical monitoring systems, autonomous vehicular systems, and industrial process control systems.
6. Question: Will proposals that do not have a cyber-physical infrastructure component be considered?
Answer: No.
7. Question: Will proposals that do not have an engineering component be considered?
Answer: No.
8. Question: Will proposals that do not have a SBE component be considered?
Answer: No
9. What is meant by interdependent infrastructures?
Two infrastructures are interconnected if the processes by which one infrastructure delivers its services is affected by the state of the other. If both infrastructures require each other's services then they can be considered interdependent, if only one requires the other's services then it is dependent, examples of interdependent and dependent infrastructures are
- The interdependency of water and power: the requirement of water for cooling thermal cycle power plants and the need for power to deliver the water to the power plant,
- The interdependency of transportation and public health: the requirement of human resources to deliver public transportation and the dependence of health services on human resources arriving by public transportation,
- The interdependency of power and cyber-physical: the need of power for sensors and control systems and the dependence of power systems on detection and control of faults for safe and reliable operation,
- The short term dependency of financial services on communication and internet services, and the longer term dependency of communication services on the integrity of financial services.
We draw a distinction between interconnected and interdependent infrastructures. Two infrastructures can be interconnected at a given location, but not interdependent, because of geographical proximity such as the colocation of pipes and fiber optic cables, or electricity poles carrying telephone wires. The state of one infrastructure is affected by the state of the other through the spatial correlation but not by direct use of each other's service outputs.
10. Question: Can I study interconnected infrastructures?
Answer: No, proposals that just study infrastructures that are interconnected but not interdependent are not responsive to this solicitation.
11. Question: What is meant by resilient or resiliency, adaptability and robustness?
Answer: There have been many definitions of resiliency offered across different disciplines, and this solicitation does not wish to be overly prescriptive in defining these terms. A recent definition of resilience is "the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, or more successfully adapt to actual or potential adverse events." The essential features of resiliency are the ability to absorb disturbances, or avoid disruptions, and "bounce back" and respond. The core element of resiliency is "bouncing back," which in this context is taken to mean the recovery of levels of service by the infrastructure after a disturbance. This service level recovery may be accompanied by changes in system components and structure that are temporary and permanent, which has been defined as adaptability. A linked concept is robustness, which is the loss of service that is induced by a disturbance. The boundary between when the system is responding robustly and when it is being resilient is not clear because the entire response is a dynamic trajectory governed by feedforward and feedback control interventions as well as design features. Proposals should be clear about the metrics and measures that they are employing for resiliency and robustness of given infrastructure services and how any data collected or used within their studies will be manipulated to compute such measures. Furthermore, resiliency is affected by how well we design interdependent systems to account for the wear and tear of day-to-day operations.
12. Question: I am specifically interested in the response of individual infrastructures to hazards. Is it appropriate to submit to this solicitation?
Answer: No, the goal of this solicitation is to focus on the interdependent nature of infrastructures. It is also preferred that the scope include not just responses to extreme events, such as natural disasters or large scale terrorist attacks, but to other more mild disturbances that may cause temporary disruption of service but not catastrophic loss.
13. Question: Is resiliency to deliberate attacks on interdependent infrastructures considered within the scope of the solicitation?
Answer: Yes, the source of the disturbance can be considered as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the smooth functioning of the infrastructure processes and delivered services. Again, a narrow focus on the disruption of a single infrastructure is not allowed.
14. Question: What defines "to broadly integrate across the disciplines of computer science, engineering, and SBE sciences"?
Answer: Integration can occur at many levels of research. This solicitation is particularly interested in discovering and elucidating process-level interactions that occur among these disciplinary components within interdependent infrastructure services. Thus, not only must all components be fully integrated but all components must also be sufficient to convey their disciplinary processes and to convey the coupling of those disciplinary processes.
15. Question: If I plan to collect data that may contain personal information am I expected to consider legal and ethical issues around the collection and use of such data?
Answer: Yes, and you may wish to consult your IRB.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Submitted by Frankie King on January 16th, 2014
Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP)PROGRAM SOLICITATION
|
 |
National Science Foundation |
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
February 05, 2014
AGEP-Transformation
February 12, 2014
AGEP-KAT and AGEP-BPR
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES
The Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program will support three types of projects described in this solicitation: 1) AGEP-Transformation (AGEP-T); 2) AGEP-Knowledge Adoption and Translation (AGEP-KAT); and 3) AGEP-Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education (AGEP-BPR). This solicitation represents an expansion of the program to include strategic investments in the development and study of new models for STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM career preparation that eliminate or mitigate negative factors and promote positive practices for underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities.
AGEP is interested in proposals that include any or all science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields supported by the NSF, including the social, behavioral and economic sciences, and multi-, cross-, or inter- disciplinary fields. AGEP has partnered with the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) to support graduate student researchers through the MPS AGEP-Graduate Research Supplement Dear Colleague Letter (NSF 13-071) which is highlighted in this solicitation. However, AGEP projects are not limited to or focused only on the mathematical and physical sciences.
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
General Information
Program Title:
Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP)
Synopsis of Program:
AGEP is committed to the national goal of increasing the numbers of underrepresented minorities (URMs), including those with disabilities, entering and completing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduate education and postdoctoral training to levels representative of the available pool. URMs include African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders. Increased URM participation in advanced STEM education and training is critical for supporting the development of a diverse professional STEM workforce especially a diverse STEM faculty who serve as the intellectual, professional, personal, and organizational role models that shape the expectations of future scientists and engineers. To achieve this long term goal, the AGEP program will support the development, implementation, study, and dissemination of innovative models and standards of graduate education and postdoctoral training that are designed to improve URM participation, preparation, and success.
AGEP projects must focus on URM U.S. citizens in STEM graduate education, and/or postdoctoral training, and their preparation for academic STEM careers at all types of institutions of higher education. STEM professional development more broadly may be included in projects with a strong and compelling argument. AGEP is interested in proposals that include any or all STEM fields supported by NSF including the social, behavioral and economic sciences, and multi-, cross-, or inter-disciplinary STEM fields.
AGEP encourages community colleges, primarily undergraduate institutions, minority-serving institutions (Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities), women's colleges, and institutions primarily serving persons with disabilities to participate as lead institutions and as alliance partners in all three types of AGEP projects.
AGEP intends to support the following types of projects:
- AGEP-Transformation - Strategic alliances of institutions and organizations to develop, implement, and study innovative evidence-based models and standards for STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM career preparation that eliminate or mitigate negative factors and promote positive practices for URMs.
- AGEP-Knowledge Adoption and Translation (AGEP-KAT) - Projects to expand the adoption (or adaptation) of research findings and evidence-based strategies and practices related to the participation and success of URMs in STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM careers at all types of institutions of higher education.
- AGEP-Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education (AGEP-BPR) - Investigator initiated empirical research projects that seek to create and study new theory-driven models and innovations related to the participation and success of URMs in STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM careers at all types of institutions of higher education.
Note to students and postdoctoral scholars seeking support: The AGEP program does not make awards to individual students or postdocs to undertake their education or research activities. Undergraduates and graduate students seeking support for graduate education should review the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship program (GRFP) which is a fellowship program (http://nsfgrfp.org/). Postdoctoral scholars seeking support should review the NSF postdoctoral programs summarized athttp://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/fastlane.pdoc.DisplayProgramType. Additionally, some NSF Directorates may have special funding opportunities to support students and postdoctoral trainees that contribute to broadening participation in STEM. NSF principal investigators seeking funds to support diverse students and postdoctoral trainees are encouraged to contact their NSF program officer for information on potential opportunities.
AGEP - Graduate Research Supplements (AGEP-GRS) The Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) encourages Principal Investigators (PIs) of current MPS awards to support one (additional) Ph.D. student per award, through a partnership with the AGEP program. This opportunity is available to PIs with current MPS research awards whose institutions and/or academic units are either currently participating in the AGEP program; or whose institutions and/or academic units have participated in the AGEP program in the past (AGEP Legacy institutions). Such PIs may apply to MPS for a supplement to defray the costs for: stipend, tuition, benefits and indirect costs for one graduate research student working on the MPS-funded research. The goal is to create an opportunity to engage additional students in research, to develop a positive learning environment for students, and to improve diversity and retention at the doctoral level within the mathematical and physical sciences. For more information review the AGEP-GRS Dear Colleague Letter (NSF 13-071).
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
-
Mark H. Leddy, Lead Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4655, email: mleddy@nsf.gov
-
Maurice Dues, Program Specialist, telephone: (703) 292-7311, email: mdues@nsf.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
- 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
- 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: 11
Up to 5 AGEP-Transformation awards, about 2 AGEP-KAT awards, and about 4 AGEP-BPR awards are anticipated in FY 2014 pending the availability of funds and the quality of the competition.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $4,800,000 Approximately $4,800,000 in FY 2014 for new AGEP awards pending the availability of funds.
Eligibility Information
Organization Limit:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
AGEP-Transformation proposals are invited from strategic alliances of institutions and organizations. Alliance partners may include all types of non-profit institutions of higher education, industry, non-profit organizations, and/or Federal National laboratories (note that AGEP grant funding is limited to the organizations that are eligible for NSF support). At least one alliance partner must offer the Ph.D. in a field supported by the NSF which is included in the alliance activities. State systems of higher education may participate as a system or as individual institutions.
AGEP-KAT and AGEP-BPR proposals are invited from all eligible individuals and organizations as described in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide.
PI Limit:
None Specified
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
- AGEP-Transformation - An institution or organization may serve as the lead on one AGEP-Transformation collaborative proposal. An institution or organization may be a partner in multiple AGEP-Transformation projects; however the projects must be distinct and not overlap or have similar activities or education research components. Each AGEP-Transformation alliance partner must simultaneously submit proposals as part of one collaborative proposal. (See Chapter II, Section D.4.b for guidance in the preparation of collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations.) Institutions and organizations involved in AGEP-Transformation projects may also participate in AGEP-KAT and AGEP-BPR projects.
- AGEP-KAT and AGEP-BPR - There are no limits on the number of proposals that can be submitted; however the projects must be distinct and not overlap or have similar activities or education research components with proposals in other AGEP tracks.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
None Specified
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
- Letters of Intent: Not Applicable
- Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable
- Full Proposals:
- Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at:http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
- Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)
B. Budgetary Information
- Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
- Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable
- Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
C. Due Dates
- Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
February 05, 2014
AGEP-Transformation
February 12, 2014
AGEP-KAT and AGEP-BPR
Proposal Review Information Criteria
Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Award Administration Information
Award Conditions: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Reporting Requirements: Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Introduction
- Program Description
- Award Information
- Eligibility Information
- Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
- NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
- Award Administration Information
- Agency Contacts
- Other Information
- Appendix
I. INTRODUCTION
Educating and training an innovative U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) workforce that can maintain U.S. leadership in the global economy will require continued investment in STEM graduate education and postdoctoral training. To maintain and increase the number of highly trained STEM professionals in the U.S., the country needs to optimize the development of the diverse talent pool of U.S. citizens that are underrepresented in STEM fields.1 African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders (URMs), and those with disabilities, have been underrepresented in STEM education and the workforce compared to their population in the country. Despite steady increases over the last two decades2 the underrepresentation continues to be severe in STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and in STEM academic positions. The participation of URMs in academic STEM careers is particularly important given the pivotal role that faculty members and administrative leadership have as intellectual, professional, personal, and organizational role models that shape the expectations of future scientists and engineers.
Research and reports indicate that there are many factors within universities and colleges, society, and the culture of STEM fields that impact the participation and success of URM students in STEM graduate programs, postdoctoral training opportunities, and STEM faculty positions.1,3,4,5 Therefore, better understanding of the underlying issues that impact the participation, preparation, and advancement of URMs in STEM is needed for the organizations, institutions, policy makers, and funding agencies that develop and implement programs and policies that impact URMs in STEM. The Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) program will make strategic investments in the development and study of new models and standards for STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM career preparation that eliminate or mitigate negative factors and promote positive practices for URMs. Through these investments, AGEP supports the national goal of increasing the numbers of URMs, including those with disabilities, entering and completing graduate education and postdoctoral training, and entering academic STEM careers.
The AGEP program directly supports the National Science Foundation's performance goal to "Prepare and engage a diverse STEM workforce motivated to participate at the frontiers" articulated in the NSFStrategic Plan for 2011-2016. AGEP is a program in the Division of Human Resource Development (HRD), which is part of the Directorate of Education and Human Resources (EHR) of the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The NSF supports research at the frontiers of knowledge, across all fields of science (including the social, behavioral and economic sciences), technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and all levels of STEM education. The NSF enables innovation and discovery in STEM by educating and preparing a world class, broadly inclusive STEM workforce that is motivated and prepared to participate at the frontiers of science. NSF is committed to reaching across society to ensure that the rich diversity of the nation's populations is represented in the STEM workforce and that individuals engaged in STEM fields are trained to participate fully in the global research enterprise.
The Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR)
The mission of EHR is to achieve excellence in U.S. STEM education at all levels and in all settings (both formal and informal) to support the development of a diverse and well-prepared workforce of scientists, technicians, engineers, mathematicians and educators and a well-informed citizenry that has access to the ideas and tools of science and engineering. Specific EHR goals are:
- Prepare the next generation of STEM professionals and attract and retain more Americans to STEM careers.
- Develop a robust research community that can conduct rigorous research and evaluation that will support excellence in STEM education and that integrates research and education.
- Increase the technological, scientific and quantitative literacy of all Americans so that they can exercise responsible citizenship and live productive lives in an increasingly technological society.
- Broaden participation (individuals, geographic regions, types of institutions, STEM disciplines) and close achievement gaps in all STEM fields.
The Division of Human Resource Development (HRD)
The Division of Human Resource Development (HRD) serves as a focal point for NSF's agency-wide commitment to enhancing the quality and excellence of STEM education and research through broadening participation by historically underrepresented groups - minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. HRD envisions a well-prepared and competitive U.S. workforce of scientists, technologists, engineers, mathematicians, and educators that reflects the diversity of the U.S. population. HRD's mission is to grow the innovative and competitive U.S. STEM workforce that is vital for sustaining and advancing the Nation's prosperity by supporting the broader participation and success of individuals currently underrepresented in STEM and the institutions that serve them.
HRD has three strategic goals:
- Knowledge Building: The creation of new knowledge, innovations, and models for broadening participation in the STEM enterprise.
- Knowledge Utilization: The translation of knowledge, innovations, and models for broadening participation in STEM for use by stakeholders.
- Expand Opportunities: The expansion of stakeholder capacity to support and engage diverse populations in high quality STEM education and research programs.
The Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) Program
The AGEP program supports the national goal of increasing the numbers of URMs, including those with disabilities, entering and completing graduate education and postdoctoral training, and entering academic STEM careers.
The AGEP program objective is: To develop, implement, study, and disseminate innovative graduate education and postdoctoral training models designed to improve URM participation, preparation, and success.
This program objective supports the NSF's commitment to:
- Increasing the participation and success of URMs in STEM graduate education and postdoctoral training so that they may participate and succeed in academic STEM careers at all types of institutions of higher education.
- Building the understanding and knowledge of the factors that impact the participation and success of URMs in STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM careers and to share this knowledge broadly.
AGEP is particularly interested in building knowledge in areas related to the following questions:
- What are the underlying issues affecting the differential participation rates in STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM careers of URMs? What additional or different factors exist for URMs who are men, women, persons with disabilities, and/or low socio-economic individuals?
- What are the experiences and interactions in graduate and postdoctoral settings that enhance or inhibit URM academic performance and encourage or discourage URM persistence to degree and career interest in the professoriate?
- What are the interpersonal, behavioral, and institutional causes of variable URM success in STEM graduate and postdoctoral training?
- What are the organizational and STEM cultural factors that make STEM graduate and postdoctoral training environments and STEM professional careers, especially academic careers, more or less welcoming and inviting to URMs?
- How does a diverse STEM graduate student body, postdoctoral trainee population, and professional workforce and academy impact STEM innovation and productivity?
_________________
- Council of Graduate Schools and Education Testing Service, The Path Forward the Future of Graduate Education in the United States, 2010.
- National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Two Decades of Increasing Diversity More than Doubled the Number of Minority Graduate Students in Science and Engineering, 2011.
- National Academies, Expanding Minority Participation America's Science and Technology at the Crossroads, the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010.
- Poirier, Tanenbaum, Storey, Kirshstein, and Rodriguez, The Road to the STEM Professoriate for Underrepresented Minorities: A Review of the Literature, October 2009.
- Association of American Universities, Graduate and Postdoctoral Education Committee,Postdoctoral Education Survey Summary of Results, 2005.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This solicitation requests proposals for three different types of projects described more fully below: 1) AGEP-Transformation (AGEP-T); 2) AGEP-Knowledge Adoption and Translation (AGEP-KAT); and 3) AGEP-Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education (AGEP-BPR). Proposals that do not support the AGEP objective will be returned without review. AGEP is focused on the development of the U.S. STEM workforce; therefore research and development activities should be designed to target U.S. citizens that are racial and ethnic minorities underrepresented in STEM (African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders) including URMs who have disabilities. Given the growing importance of international collaborations in STEM, AGEP projects with appropriate international components are allowed and encouraged. AGEP proposals that have a clear link to the other NSF research Directorates such as disciplinary or multi-, cross-, or inter-disciplinary projects that support the education and research priorities of NSF Directorates are encouraged. These AGEP proposals may be co-reviewed and/or considered for co-funding by other NSF programs, divisions and/or directorates.
AGEP proposers are expected to integrate and leverage existing NSF programs and NSF research centers that are in place at the participating organizations into the proposed AGEP project as appropriate (see the additional review criterion). These include but are not limited to graduate and career programs such as Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT), Graduate STEM Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12), Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST), ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers, and Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation Bridges to the Doctorate (LSAMP-BD); as well as the undergraduate programs such as the Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (S-STEM), Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP), Historically Black College and Universities-Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP), Tribal College Undergraduate Program (TCUP), and Research on Disabilities Education (RDE) alliances; as well as research centers such as Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC), Engineering Research Centers (ERC), and Science and Technology Centers (STC).
1) AGEP-Transformation (AGEP-T): Three and a half year (forty-two month) alliance projects to develop, implement, and study innovative evidence-based models and standards for STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM career preparation that eliminate or mitigate negative factors and promote positive practices for URMs. STEM professional development more broadly may be included in projects with a strong and compelling argument. AGEP-Transformation grantees may be eligible for up to five years of additional support after the initial project based on: the outcomes of a site visit; NSF review of evaluation and performance reports; and peer review of a proposal for continuation.
Goal:
To develop, implement, and study innovative evidence-based models and standards of STEM graduate education and postdoctoral training experiences designed to improve URM participation, preparation, and success in STEM graduate education and postdoctoral training.
Scope:
Projects involving any of the fields supported by NSF are eligible. Projects that focus on one discipline or on multi-, cross-, or inter-disciplinary areas are welcome, as well as projects that include a subset of or all STEM fields. Projects designed to increase understanding of issues related to gender and disability status in addition to URM status are also encouraged. The logic for the scope selection should be clearly articulated in the proposal, including data and information on the potential National impact on the discipline(s) of the proposed project.
Activities:
The program provides maximum flexibility to the proposer for designing and implementing AGEP-Transformation projects. However, the proposed activities are expected to be based on and justified by relevant social science and education research. The proposed activities should contribute to the production of URM STEM graduates and postdoctoral trainees as well as contribute to our understanding of issues related to URMs in STEM graduate education and/or postdoctoral training programs, and their interest in, preparation for, and success in academic STEM careers at all types of institutions. AGEP-Transformation activities are expected to achieve significant long term transformation within the STEM discipline(s) and the alliance partners. Transformational activities may include: training and skills and awareness building for STEM faculty, staff, and administrators; the development of innovative educational, training, and career opportunities and pathways among alliance partners; student support services and programs; and the review and revisions of policies and procedures related to STEM faculty, postdoctoral trainees, and graduate students.
AGEP-Transformation projects can commit up to 20% of the requested direct costs to providing student or postdoctoral financial support (i.e. Full or partial stipends, scholarships, fellowships, recruitment bonuses, retention bonuses, tuition and fees for their degree or training program, insurance and other benefits). Other types of incentives can be offered that are not considered direct financial support to ensure graduate student and/or postdoctoral scholar participation in the project's activities. An example may be access to travel funds for professional conferences and meetings in exchange for participation in a peer mentoring program.
Formal study of the proposed activities is a critical component of AGEP-Transformation projects which will require the involvement of social science or education research scientists in the project design and implementation. Proposals are expected to include a five-page description of the proposed study as a supplementary document in the proposal. Transformation projects are expected to make substantial contributions to the published literature on URMs and STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM careers at all types of institutions of higher education.
Alliances:
Strategic alliances of partner institutions and organizations are expected and should be designed to leverage shared goals and resources and create innovative educational, training, and career opportunities and pathways. Partners may include all types of non-profit institutions of higher education, industry, non-profit organizations, and/or Federal National laboratories (note that AGEP grant funding is limited to the organizations that are eligible for NSF support). Alliances must offer a clear rationale for the partnerships as well as the value added to and by each partner. Geographic proximity alone is not justification for an alliance although it may be a strength that can be leveraged. The proposed activities should be alliance-based activities that could not be implemented without the proposed alliance.
2) AGEP-Knowledge Adoption and Translation (AGEP-KAT): Projects for up to five-years to support the adoption (or adaptation) of demonstrated strategies and practices.
Goal:
To support the dissemination to new stakeholders and/or the adoption (or adaptation) in new settings of research findings and evidence-based strategies and practices related to increasing the participation and success of URMs in STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM careers at all types of institutions of higher education.
Scope:
Projects are expected to broaden the adoption (or adaptation) of demonstrated strategies and practices. The materials, tools, and practices must have been demonstrated to be effective in improving outcomes of URMs in STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and/or their preparation for academic STEM careers. STEM professional development more broadly may be included in projects with a strong and compelling argument. The participants in AGEP-KAT projects should be determined by the goals of the project but may be broad regional and national audiences and include faculty and administrators, professional societies, employers of STEM professionals, and others who have roles and influence in graduate education, postdoctoral training, and/or professional STEM careers, especially those that have a demonstrated track record in producing URM STEM doctorates. While there is no eligibility restriction, past and current AGEP grantees are specifically encouraged to submit proposals to share promising practices, tools, materials, and resources for which evidence demonstrating effectiveness is available. Additionally, NSF's past and current IGERT and GK-12 grantees and the Council of Graduate School's Ph.D. Completion Project and Preparing Future Faculty institutions are encouraged to participate. AGEP-KAT projects may be alliance based, but an alliance or partnership is not required. Direct student or postdoctoral financial support (i.e. full or partial stipends, scholarships, fellowships, recruitment bonuses, retention bonuses, tuition and fees for their degree or training program, insurance and other benefits) is not allowed under AGEP-KAT. Projects involving any of the fields supported by NSF are eligible. Projects that focus on one discipline or on multi-, cross-, or inter-disciplinary areas are welcome, as well as projects that include a subset of or all STEM fields.
Activities:
AGEP-KAT projects may include a range of activities designed to translate innovations, research findings, and evidence-based knowledge for adoption (or adaptation) and implementation in different settings and by new stakeholders. Projects that focus on providing a series of training sessions or workshops to share evidence-based practices are expected to include mechanisms to evaluate and document participants' utilization of the knowledge, strategies, tools, and materials and the impact of the training over time. All proposers are strongly encouraged to use technology, social networking, and other creative strategies both to implement the project and to evaluate the project's impact over time.
3) AGEP-Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education (AGEP-BPR): Three-year investigator-initiated empirical research projects.
Goal:
To advance understanding of the underlying issues affecting the participation and success of URMs in STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM careers at all types of institutions of higher education.
Scope:
Behavioral, cognitive, affective, learning, and social factors as well as organizational, institutional or systemic processes that may have an impact on participation and success may be investigated using methods of sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, statistics, and other social and behavioral science and education disciplines. Race and ethnicity should be the major variables in the analysis with gender, disability, and economic status as potential interactional variables. AGEP-BPR proposals may be jointly reviewed as appropriate with other NSF education and social science research programs. Proposals from individual researchers as well as collaborative proposals with multiple research partners are both encouraged.
The Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education track exists across several NSF diversity programs with different focus populations. Studies of non-AGEP populations may be appropriate in these programs: Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP); Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP); and Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP). Additionally education research programs in the Division of Research and Learning (DRL) and Division of Undergraduate Education (DGE) may be appropriate.
Activities:
Proposers have broad flexibility in designing research projects to study URM participation and success in STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM careers at all types of institutions of higher education. STEM professional development more broadly may be included in research projects with a strong and compelling argument. The results of the study are expected to be of sufficient significance to merit peer review and publication.
Note on Student and Postdoctoral Supported as Project Personnel for all AGEP proposals:
Please note the NSF requires a postdoctoral mentoring plan if the proposal includes support for postdoctoral scholars as project personnel. AGEP also requires mentoring plans for graduate students that are project personnel working to support the implementation, research, and management of the AGEP project (submitted as a supplemental document using the same format as the postdoctoral plan).
III. AWARD INFORMATION
Anticipated Type of Award: Continuing Grant or Standard Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: 11
Up to 5 AGEP-Transformation awards, about 2 AGEP-KAT awards, and about 4 AGEP-BPR awards are anticipated in FY 2014 pending the availability of funds and the quality of the competition.
IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
Organization Limit:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
AGEP-Transformation proposals are invited from strategic alliances of institutions and organizations. Alliance partners may include all types of non-profit institutions of higher education, industry, non-profit organizations, and/or Federal National laboratories (note that AGEP grant funding is limited to the organizations that are eligible for NSF support). At least one alliance partner must offer the Ph.D. in a field supported by the NSF which is included in the alliance activities. State systems of higher education may participate as a system or as individual institutions.
AGEP-KAT and AGEP-BPR proposals are invited from all eligible individuals and organizations as described in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide.
PI Limit:
None Specified
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
- AGEP-Transformation - An institution or organization may serve as the lead on one AGEP-Transformation collaborative proposal. An institution or organization may be a partner in multiple AGEP-Transformation projects; however the projects must be distinct and not overlap or have similar activities or education research components. Each AGEP-Transformation alliance partner must simultaneously submit proposals as part of one collaborative proposal. (See Chapter II, Section D.4.b for guidance in the preparation of collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations.) Institutions and organizations involved in AGEP-Transformation projects may also participate in AGEP-KAT and AGEP-BPR projects.
- AGEP-KAT and AGEP-BPR - There are no limits on the number of proposals that can be submitted; however the projects must be distinct and not overlap or have similar activities or education research components with proposals in other AGEP tracks.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
None Specified
Additional Eligibility Info:
None
V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.
- Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
- Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail fromnsfpubs@nsf.gov.
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.
Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will check for required sections of the full proposal, in accordance with Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) instructions described in Chapter II.C.2. The GPG requires submission of: Project Summary; Project Description; References Cited; Biographical Sketch(es); Budget; Budget Justification; Current and Pending Support; Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources; Data Management Plan; and Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, if applicable. If a required section is missing, FastLane will not accept the proposal.
Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions. If the solicitation instructions do not require a GPG-required section to be included in the proposal, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation." Doing so will enable FastLane to accept your proposal.
On the COVER SHEET select Minority Graduate Education as the appropriate NSF program and Division of Human Resource Development (HRD) as the NSF division to be entered on the proposal cover sheet. (AGEP was previously named the Minority Graduate Education program.) Grants.gov users should refer to Chapter VI of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide for guidance about entering NSF Unit Consideration information.
The TITLE should be prefaced with an abbreviation identifying the type of AGEP proposal being submitted:
- AGEP-T - for AGEP Transformation proposals
- AGEP-KAT - for AGEP Knowledge Adoption and Translation proposals
- AGEP-BPR - for AGEP Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education proposals
The one-page PROJECT SUMMARY should:
- In the OVERVIEW please describe the proposed project activities. For Transformation and BPR proposals also identify the theory, concepts or framework; research question(s) and hypotheses; target research subjects; and data analysis techniques.
- Identify all partnering organizations that will be involved in the project.
- Be sure to address both NSF review criteria: INTELLECTUAL MERIT and BROADER IMPACTS in the two seperate text boxes.
REFERENCES CITED: All references cited in the Project Summary and Project Description must be listed in this section. If no references are cited please submit "no references cited" in this section.
BIOSKETCHES: Biosketches for the PI, Co-PI(s) and senior project personnel are required. Biosketches must follow the NSF guidelines outlined in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide and may not be longer than 2 pages.
BUDGET AND BUDGET JUSTIFICATION: Budgets should be in NSF format and include up to three pages of budget justification. The budget justification should be in narrative form and include detailed explanations for each line item with budget resources listed in the budget. Each partner in a collaborative proposal must submit a separate budget and budget justification. Information about what may or may not be included in the budget or budget justification is outlined in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. A budget must also be submitted for each proposed subaward.
CURRENT AND PENDING SUPPORT: Information on current and pending grant support for the PI and Co-PI(s) is required. Follow the guidelines outlined in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide for this section.
FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES: This section should include details about facilities, equipment, or any other resources necessary for completion of the project. As per the PAPP Guide Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter II.C.2.i, the description of resources should be narrative in nature and must not include quantifiable financial information.
SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS: Include all required supplementary documents listed in the Grant Proposal Guide or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. In addition the allowable supplementary documents listed in the guidelines, AGEP proposals are expected to include the following documents as appropriate:
- AGEP-Transformation proposals are expected to include a five-page description of the proposed social science or education research study that will be done as part of the project. The content of this research description is described later in this section under the AGEP-Transformation header.
- All AGEP proposals can include letters of commitment from significant partners in the proposal. The letters of commitment should indicate what the writer is committing to do and/or contribute as part of the proposed project. General letters of support for the project will not be accepted.
- All AGEP proposals must include mentoring plans for postdocs and graduate students directly supported on the proposed project as personnel.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The details for the 15 page project description for each type of AGEP proposal are below. Note that all NSF proposals must address both NSF review criterion in the text of the project description: INTELLECTUAL MERIT and BROADER IMPACTS. Please note that per guidance in the GPG, the Project Description must contain, as a seperate section within the narrative, a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposaed activities.
All AGEP proposals are expected to include in their project description a project evaluation plan, reporting on prior related NSF support, and an outreach and communication plan. Greater detail is provided about these sections following the information specific to each of the three AGEP proposal types.
1) AGEP-Transformation (AGEP-T)
Background and Context: Baseline data and contextual information about the institutions and organizations involved in the alliance are necessary for NSF and the peer reviewers to determine the potential impact of the proposed project and past performance. Data supporting the need for the project must be provided. Describe the alliance's STEM graduate students, postdoctoral trainees, and faculty by gender, race and ethnicity, and STEM discipline for at least three years. Include disability status when available. Other appropriate data such as results from student, faculty and industry surveys, job placement data, and analysis of exit interviews can also be included.
Goals, Objectives, and Activities: Describe the goals and objectives of the project and link these to the proposed activities including references to the relevant research supporting the proposed activities and strategies. The proposed activities are expected to be alliance-based activities that could not be implemented without the proposed alliance. Activities should be described in enough detail that NSF and peer reviewers can evaluate the quality of the proposed strategies. The proposal should describe how the alliance will define and track "AGEP" students, postdoctoral trainees, and faculty, and other participants and beneficiaries of the project.
AGEP-Transformation projects can commit up to 20% of the requested direct costs to providing graduate student or postdoctoral financial support to URM U.S. citizens (i.e. Full or partial stipends, scholarships, fellowships, recruitment bonuses, retention bonuses, tuition and fees for their degree or training program, insurance and other benefits). If direct financial support is requested it must provide URM recipients with financial support packages equitable with other similar students and postdoctoral scholars and care should be taken to ensure that the support does not isolate or otherwise negatively impact the individuals' education or training. The proposal should include the following information: 1) The number of U.S. URMs that will be supported at each alliance partner during the project and a statement that the requested support does not supplant existing support funds; 2) A description of how the recipients will be supported after the AGEP funding ends through the completion of their program; 3) Describe the need and logic for the proposed financial support (i.e. is the support designed to meet the project's objectives related to recruitment, retention, preparation, and/or interest in academic careers); 4) The mechanism for collecting demographic data and tracking the recipients during their educational or training program and into career; and 5) The total amount of direct financial support requested in the budget justification (add up the amounts entered in the budget for direct graduate student or postdoctoral financial support which may be in the "participant support", "other", and "personnel" line items depending on your institutional classification of the support). See additional review criteria in section VI.
Alliance: The logic of the proposed alliance and the roles of each partner must be clearly described in the proposal. It is expected that all partner institutions will have substantial roles in the planning and implementation of the activities under the grant, including in the management and evaluation. Alliance partnerships must already be established at the time of submitting the proposal. Each partner requesting grant support from the AGEP program must simultaneously submit proposals as part of one collaborative proposal (See Chapter II, Section D.4.b of the GPG for guidance in the preparation of collaborative proposals). Subawards cannot be used for partnering organizations in an alliance.
Sustainability and Commitment: Include a description of your plans to sustain AGEP activities that have proven effective after the project ends. Evidence of institutional and leadership commitment to broadening participation should be included in the proposal or in letters of commitment. Examples of institutional commitment might include the establishment of administrative offices or positions to support URM student success and talent development, and commitment to consider changes in policies to institutionalize improvements such as modifying tenure, promotion, and salary decisions to reward faculty for URM talent development, as well as other possibilities. See additional review criteria in section VI.
Research Description: AGEP-Transformation proposals are expected to include a five-page supplementary document devoted to the description of the proposed quantitative and/or qualitative social science or education research study that complements and is clearly related to the Transformation project description. The research description must include relevant information including: 1) the conceptual framework for the study; 2) a discussion of the theory or theories grounding the research and the testable hypotheses; 3) the proposed methods to test the hypotheses; 4) the expected findings; and 5) to what extent the results and data will be disaggregated for multiple characteristics such as gender, disability, and foreign-born or foreign-trained status, in addition to race and ethnicity in order to answer the proposed research questions. The research description is expected to illustrate how the study will contribute to the knowledge base of URMs in STEM graduate education, postdoctoral training, and/or STEM professional careers especially STEM academic careers. It should be clear in the proposal which team members will undertake the study and their relevant social science or education research qualifications and skills to undertake the proposed research study. Proposers are encouraged to collaborate with experts in social science and/or education research, from within the alliance partner institutions or institutions that are not part of the alliance, to propose a competitive research study linked to the proposed Transformation project. Be sure to incorporate the research study into your data management plan description (EHR guidelineshttp://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmpdocs/ehr.pdf).
Management: Clearly describe the project responsibilities and level of effort on the project of each member of the team (PIs and other key personnel, including those for whom no funding is requested). The team must include appropriate social science and/or education research expertise to support the research component as well as the implementation of the AGEP-Transformation project. Include a project communication plan for the management team that includes how shared decision making across the alliance will be accomplished and how project information will be shared with stakeholders that are not part of the management team (i.e. all STEM faculty, senior leadership, etc.). AGEP-Transformation projects are required to have an Internal Steering Committee (ISC) to help the management team with project implementation, resolve project issues, and ensure that the project is on track for meeting project goals. The roles and responsibilities of the committee should be described in the proposal. The size and composition of the committee will depend on the design of the project. ISC members could include senior STEM faculty, institutional staff in graduate and postdoctoral offices, offices that might institutionalize activities, and offices that provide data and other resources to the project. This committee should meet frequently throughout the project with the project management team.
AGEP-Transformation projects may elect to have an External Advisory Committee (EAC) to provide an avenue for getting external advice from experts and educational leaders on the project implementation. Members of the EAC could be selected strategically based on the project's goals and could include leaders from institutions of higher education, industry, national labs, and/or experts in areas relevant to the project activities. An EAC normally meets once a year to provide advice to the project management team, identify opportunities, make suggestions for sustainability, and to meet with the senior alliance leadership and other stakeholders to help communicate the project's impact and outcomes.
Timeline: Include a forty-two month project timeline with major objectives and milestones. The timeline should include a two-day site visit sometime between project month 32 and 34. Eligibility for continued support after the initial forty-two month project will be determined by NSF through review of evaluation and performance reports, the site visit, and peer review of proposals for continued support. If encouraged by NSF, a proposal for continuation would be due to NSF approximately four months after the site visit.
2) AGEP- Knowledge Adoption and Translation (AGEP-KAT)
Background and Context: Describe the need and value of the project including relevant data and references and the potential impact of the project.
Goals, Objectives, and Activities: Describe the goals and objectives of the project and link these to the proposed activities. Include references to the evidence of effectiveness of the practices and strategies to be disseminated or adapted. Activities should be described in enough detail that NSF and peer reviewers can evaluate the quality and appropriateness of the proposed strategies for meeting the project goals. AGEP-KAT projects that are focused on training workshops should describe how they will provide support to the participants after the workshop, and document the participants' utilization of the knowledge, strategies, tools, and materials. Direct student or postdoctoral financial support (i.e. full or partial stipends, scholarships, fellowships, tuition and fees, insurance and other benefits) is not allowed under AGEP-KAT except for students and postdoctoral trainees serving as project personnelimplementing the AGEP-KAT project. The proposal should describe how the AGEP-KAT project will define and track "AGEP" students, postdoctoral trainees, and faculty, and other participants and beneficiaries of the project.
Sustainability and Commitment: Include a description of your plans to sustain AGEP-KAT activities that have proven effective after the project ends. Evidence of institutional and leadership commitment to broadening participation should be included in the proposal or in letters of commitment for adoption or adaptation projects. See additional review criteria in section VI.
Management: Clearly describe the responsibilities and level of effort on the project for each member of the team (PIs and other key personnel, including those for whom no funding is requested). Your management plan may include steering committees and external advisory committees as appropriate for your project. Include a timeline for the project with major objectives and milestones.
3) AGEP-Broadening Participation Research in STEM Education (AGEP-BPR)
Research Description: AGEP-BPR projects are expected to focus on URMs in graduate education, postdoctoral training, and academic STEM careers at all types of institutions of higher education. Therefore race and ethnicity should be the major variables in the analysis with gender and disability status as potential interactional variables. The proposal should address whether the design is premised on special needs and interests due to gender, economic status, or disability in the analysis and to what extent data will be disaggregated for multiple characteristics. AGEP expects that BPR proposals will have strong research designs that will produce rigorous, cumulative, reproducible, and usable findings. BPR proposals are expected to be grounded in a body of literature and are expected to produce high-quality, peer-reviewed research on broadening participation in STEM.
The description of the research should include:
- The disciplinary (or multi-, cross-, inter- disciplinary) and conceptual framework for the study.
- The theory or theories grounding the research or the concepts or framework of interest.
- The proposed research questions and/or testable hypotheses that reflect the current state of knowledge in the area and the theory or conceptual framework being used.
- The types of data to be collected and methods for data collection.
- Detailed discussion of the methods that will be used to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses. If a population sample is used, this should be described along with the rationale for sample selection, and the project's access to the sample population.
Other items to include in the Project Description for all AGEP proposals:
Evaluation Plans
All AGEP proposals must include a plan for an independent evaluation of the proposed project. A project is expected to track and report in detail the accomplishment of proposed targets for broader impacts and intellectual merit. The budget must include sufficient resources for evaluation and assessment. The evaluation plan must be appropriate for the scope of the project, include evaluation questions that relate to project goals, and propose evaluation activities, indicators and outcomes aligned to the evaluation questions. The evaluation processes should rely on a suitable mix of qualitative and quantitative measures. When appropriate and affordable, a project is encouraged to use experimental and/or quasi-experimental designs that may include control, treatment or comparison groups. The proposal should include a plan to communicate information to the field about the project components the independent evaluation finds to be effective and ineffective.
In addition to standard evaluation questions, an AGEP-T project evaluation should demonstrate a clear definition of the model development or replication being evaluated, the expected project outcomes, and the potential for model replication or scale up. Formative evaluation of an AGEP-T project should include methods for documenting progress and for providing feedback to the project personnel that allows for continuous improvement or project activities. Summative evaluation of an AGEP-T project focuses on the influence of the project on the expected outputs, outcomes and impacts, and should include an assessment of the contribution of the project to the field.
Formative assessment of an AGEP-KAT project may include, but is not limited to, such activities as documenting and describing the project activities and how they have been improved during the course of the project; appropriate selection of participants and their level of project engagement; and the fidelity and integrity of the project activities. Summative evaluation of an AGEP-KAT project should include an assessment of the contribution of project results to the field's knowledge base and how successful the project was at adoption, translation and communication.
Formative evaluation of an AGEP-BPR project may include, but is not limited to, such activities as documenting and describing the operations of the project; appropriate selection of research subjects; and the fidelity and integrity of the research design and measures. Summative evaluation of an AGEP-BPR project should include an assessment of the contribution of project results to the field's knowledge base.
Evaluators are expected to adhere to the American Evaluation Association's Guiding Principles for Evaluators (http://www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciples.asp) and project evaluations are expected to be consistent with the standards established by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (http://www.jcsee.org/program-evaluation-standards/program-evaluation-standards-statements). The following references may be helpful in designing an evaluation plan:
- The 2010 User-Friendly Handbook (http://www.westat.com/Westat/pdf/news/UFHB.pdf)
- User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations (NSF 97-153) (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf97153)
- Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Broadening Participation Projects (http://www.nsf.gov/od/broadeningparticipation/framework_evaluating_impacts.jsp)
- Measuring Diversity: An Evaluation Guide for STEM Graduate School Leaders (http://www.nsfagep.org/files/2011/04/MeasuringDiversity-EvalGuide.pdf)
- Evidence: An Essential Tool - Planning for and Gathering Evidence using the Design-Implementation-Outcomes (DIO) Cycle of Evidence (NSF 05-31) (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf0531/nsf0531.pdf)
- Reframing Evaluation: Defining an Indigenous Evaluation Framework (http://www.aihec.org/programs/documents/NSF-TCUP/DefiningIndigenousEvaluationFramework_LaFrance-NicholsNov2010.pdf)
Results from Prior NSF Support
If any prospective PI or Co-PI has received NSF funding for activities related to the proposed AGEP project within the past five years, a brief description of project(s) and outcome(s) must be provided in sufficient detail to enable reviewers to assess the value of results achieved. Prior support should be identified by NSF award number, amount, period of support, title, summary of results, publications, and products and their availability. Descriptions of prior NSF support must be included in the 15-page project description.
Outreach and Communication
All three AGEP proposal types are expected to include a plan for communicating information and findings of the AGEP project including both successes and failures. The plan should demonstrate that the proposer is aware of appropriate channels for sharing results from the project, such as specific peer-reviewed journals and publications, web sites and social media avenues, and/or professional conferences. AGEP-Transformation and AGEP-KAT projects must include the development and maintenance of an AGEP project website. All AGEP projects may also be asked to cooperate with the Broadening Participation in STEM Resource Network to share project information. The outreach and communication plan must be included in the 15-page project description.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited
Other Budgetary Limitations:
AGEP-Transformation normal award size will be up to $1,750,000 for 42 months (approximately $500,000 per year including direct and indirect costs) depending on the scope of the proposed project. Factors impacting the scope of the project may include: the variety and number of disciplines involved; the number and geographic location of the alliance partners; difficulty of implementing the proposed activities; and the potential impact for increasing, above and beyond current trends the Nation's racial and ethnic diversity of STEM graduate student enrollees and completers and/or postdoctoral trainees and completers. AGEP-Transformation projects can commit up to 20% of the requested direct costs to providing graduate student or postdoctoral financial support to URM U.S. citizens (i.e. full or partial stipends, scholarships, fellowships, recruitment bonuses, retention bonuses, tuition and fees for their degree or training program, insurance and other benefits).
AGEP-Knowledge Adoption and Translation normal award size will range from $200,000 to $350,000 per year (including direct and indirect costs) for up to five years, depending on the scope of the proposed project. Factors impacting the scope of the project may include: the variety and number of disciplines involved; the number and geographic location of partners if any; difficulty of implementing the proposed activities; and the potential impact for increasing, above and beyond current trends the Nation's racial and ethnic diversity of STEM graduate student enrollees and completers and/or postdoctoral trainees and completers. Direct graduate student or postdoctoral financial support (i.e. full or partial stipends, scholarships, fellowships, recruitment bonuses, retention bonuses, tuition and fees for their degree or training program, insurance and other benefits) is not allowed under AGEP-KAT.
AGEP-BPR proposals may request up to $525,000 for three years (an average of $175,000 per year including direct and indirect costs). AGEP-BPR proposals proposing to develop and study potentially transformative high-risk models should contact the program office before proposing budgets above this level.
AGEP-Transformation projects should budget for two to three key project staff including the PI and lead researcher to attend a three-day grantee meeting in the Washington, DC area every other year of the project. AGEP-KAT and AGEP-BPR projects should budget for at least one person to travel to the annual meeting.
C. Due Dates
- Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
February 05, 2014
AGEP-Transformation
February 12, 2014
AGEP-KAT and AGEP-BPR
D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage:http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.
-
For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.
Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.
- For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as Exhibit III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.
Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Empowering the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation: NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the core strategies in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the variety of learning perspectives.
Another core strategy in support of NSF's mission is broadening opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria
The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.
1. Merit Review Principles
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
- All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
- NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
- Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.
2. Merit Review Criteria
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (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:
- What is the potential for the proposed activity to
- Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
- Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
- To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
- 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?
- How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
- Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.
Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
AGEP-Transformation:
- Is there strong and reliable evidence (cited in the proposal) supporting the potential effectiveness of the proposed strategies and activities, including direct student financial support if requested?
- Are the proposed strategies and activities alliance-based?
- Are the proposed strategies and activities innovative and potentially transformative?
- Are the appropriate organizational and institutional leaders of the alliance partners committed to the project implementation and adequately involved in the project to ensure successful implementation?
- Does the proposed project coordinate with and build on existing NSF projects at the alliance partners?
- Is there a plan for sustaining the activities, including any direct student financial support if requested, that are found to be effective after the NSF project ends?
- Does the proposed research contribute to the knowledge base on URM participation and success in STEM graduate education and/or postdoctoral training and preparation for academic careers in significant and important ways?
AGEP-KAT:
- Is there strong and reliable evidence (cited in the proposal) that supports the effectiveness of the strategies and activities that will be disseminated, adopted, and/or adapted?
- Are the appropriate organizational and institutional leaders of the alliance partners committed to the project implementation and adequately involved in the project to ensure successful implementation?
- Is there a plan for sustaining the activities that are found to be effective after the NSF project ends?
B. Review and Selection Process
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.
A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.
VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
A. Notification of the Award
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)
B. Award Conditions
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website athttp://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail fromnsfpubs@nsf.gov.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
Special Award Conditions:
All AGEP-Transformation, AGEP-KAT, and AGEP-BPR grantees will be required to cooperate and participate in program-level evaluation activities by NSF and/or third party contractors.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). Within 90 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.
Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.
More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
Additional Reporting Requirements: Additional data may be requested from AGEP grantees before awards are made and periodically during the project period for monitoring and program evaluation purposes pending approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS
Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
-
Mark H. Leddy, Lead Program Director, telephone: (703) 292-4655, email: mleddy@nsf.gov
-
Maurice Dues, Program Specialist, telephone: (703) 292-7311, email: mdues@nsf.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
- FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
- Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.
IX. OTHER INFORMATION
The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "My NSF" 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 NSFGrants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "My NSF" also is available on NSF's website at http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/.
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.
Related Programs:
The National Science Foundation and the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education developed Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development. The Guidelines describe six types of research studies that can generate evidence about how to increase student learning. Research types include those that generate the most fundamental understandings related to education and learning; examinations of associations between variables; iterative design and testing of strategies or interventions; and assessments of the impact of a fully-developed intervention on an education outcome. For each research type, there is a description of the purpose and the expected empirical and/or theoretical justifications, types of project outcomes, and quality of evidence.
The Guidelines publication can be found on the NSF website with the number NSF 13-126 (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13126/nsf13126.pdf). A set of FAQs regarding theGuidelines are available with the number NSF 13-127 (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13127/nsf13127.pdf). Grant proposal writers and PIs are encouraged to familiarize themselves with both documents and use the information therein to help in the preparation of proposals to NSF.
Related URLs
National Science Foundation
- Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program (IGERT)http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=12759&org=DGE&from=homeand http://www.igert.org/
- NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP)http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=6201 andhttp://www.nsfgrfp.org/
- AGEP-Graduate Research Supplements by the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13071&org=NSF
- Directorate for Engineering's Graduate Research Diversity Supplementshttp://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503277
- Cultural Anthropology Research Experience for Graduate Students Supplementshttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08019/nsf08019.jsp
- NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowships and Other Programshttps://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/fastlane.pdoc.DisplayProgramType
- Centers of Excellence for Materials Research and Innovation (previously Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers)http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5295&org=NSF andhttp://www.mrsec.org/
- Engineering Research Centers Association http://www.erc-assoc.org/
- Science and Technology Centers http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/stc/
- Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers http://www.nsecnetworks.org/
- National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis http:// www.nceas.ucsb.edu/
- Centers for Chemical Innovation http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13635
National Institutes of Health, Training and Career Awards for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, clinician-scientists, scientists transitioning to independence and independent scientists http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/TrainingCareerAwards.htm
Department of Energy, The Office of Science Graduate Fellowship Programhttp://scgf.orau.gov/index.html
Department of Education
- Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Programhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/ppoha/index.html
- Title III Part B, Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions Programhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshbgi/index.html
- Master's Degree Programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universitieshttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/hbcumasters/funding.html
- Master's Degree Programs at Predominantly Black Institutionshttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/pbimasters/index.html
- Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Needhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/gaann/index.html
- Jacob K. Javits Fellowships Programhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/jacobjavits/index.html
State Department, U.S. Student Program http://fulbright.state.gov/grants/student-program/u-s-citizen.html
American Association of Universities (AAU), Summary of Graduate and Postdoctoral Programs http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10424
Institute for Broadening Participation, Pathways to Sciencehttp://www.pathwaystoscience.org/index.asp
Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) http://cgsnet.org/
National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/
Ethics Core Digital Library http://nationalethicsresourcecenter.net/index.php/home
Ford Foundation Fellowship Programhttp://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/FordFellowships/index.htm
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Graduate Scholarship Programshttp://www.nacme.org/sloan/Sloan.aspx?pageid=30
Southern Regional Education Board Doctoral Scholars Programshttp://www.sreb.org/page/1113/types_of_awards.html
ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.
NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
|
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov
|
PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records,NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
X. APPENDIX
References of Interest:
- American Association for the Advancement of Science, Measuring Diversity an Evaluation Guide for STEM Graduate School Leaders, 2011. http://www.nsfagep.org/evaluation-resources/
- American Institutes for Research, A Literature Review of STEM Graduate Education, The Road to the Professoriate for Underrepresented Minorities, 2009.http://www.air.org/files/AGEP_Lit_Review_10-26-09.pdf
- Association of American Universities, Committee on Postdoctoral Education Report and Recommendations, 1998.
- Association of American Universities, Graduate and Postdoctoral Education CommitteePostdoctoral Education Survey Summary of Results, 2005.
- Burton and Wang, Predicting Long-Term Success in Graduate School: A Collaborative Validity Study, ETS GRE Board Research Report, 2005.
- Carnevale, Smith, and Melton, 2011. STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
- Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies. National Academies, 2000.http://www.nap.edu/books/0309069963/html
- Council of Graduate Schools and Education Testing Service, Strengthening Pathways through Graduate School and into Careers, 2012.
- Council of Graduate Schools and Education Testing Service, The Path Forward the Future of Graduate Education in the United States, 2010.
- Council of Graduate Schools, Preparing Future Faculty to Assess Student Learning, 2011.
- Council of Graduate Schools, Broadening Participation in Graduate Education, 2009.
- Davis, G., Doctors Without Orders. Supplement to the American Scientist, 2005.http://postdoc.sigmaxi.org/results/
- Fuhrmann, Halme, O'Sullivan, and Lindstaedt, 2011. Improving Graduate Education to Support a Branching Career Pipeline: Recommendations Based on a Survey of Doctoral Students in the Basic Biomedical Sciences. Life Sciences Education, vol. 10, 239-249.
- Hoffer, T.B., M. Hess, V. Welch, Jr., and K. Williams, 2007. Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2006. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. (The report gives the results of data collected in the Survey of Earned Doctorates, conducted for six federal agencies, NSF, NIH, USED, NEH, USDA, and NASA.)
- Kyllonen, Walters, and Kaufman, The Role of Noncognitive Constructs and Other Background Variables in Graduate Education, ETS GRE Board Research Report, 2011.
- Mason, M. A., Goulden, M., & Frasch, K. (2009). Why graduate students reject the fast track.Academe, 95, 11-16.
- Merrimack LLC, Postdoctoral Appointments: Roles and Opportunities. NSF Workshop report, 2003. http://www.MerrimackLLC.com/2003/postdoc-workshop.html
- National Academies, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2007.
- National Academies, Expanding Minority Participation America's Science and Technology at the Crossroads, the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010.
- National Institutes for Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIGMS Strategic Plan for Training, 2011. http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/StrategicPlan.htm
- National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) Agenda for Change, Recommended Practices for Institutions, and Postdoc Policy Database. http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/home
- National Research Council, A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States, 2010. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12850.html
- National Research Council, Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of New Investigators in Biomedical Research. National Academies Press, 2005.
- National Research Council, Scientific Research in Education, 2002.
- National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 (NSB 12-01).http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/
- National Science Foundation, Empowering the Nation through Discovery and Innovation the NSF Strategic Plan for 2011-2016 http://www.nsf.gov/news/strategicplan/index.jsp.
- National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Two Decades of Increasing Diversity More than Doubled the Number of Minority Graduate Students in Science and Engineering, 2011. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics
- National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Academic Institutions of Minority Faculty with Science, Engineering, and Health Doctorates, 2011.http://www.nsf.gov/statistics
- National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Numbers of Doctorates Awarded in the United States Declined in 2010, 2011. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics
- National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, 2013.http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/2013/start.cfm
- Poirier, Tanenbaum, Storey, Kirshstein, and Rodriguez, The Road to the STEM Professoriate for Underrepresented Minorities: A Review of the Literature, October 2009.http://www.air.org/expertise/index/?fa=viewContent&content_id=595
- Westat and Merrimack LLC, Postdoctoral Appointments: Roles and Opportunities Policies and Practices. A Report on an NSF Workshop report, 2005.http://www.MerrimackLLC.com/2004/postdoc-workshop.html
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
