Nsf mri proposal
Further details on this story can be found on augusta free press onal contact information for nsf's major research instrumentation program is as follows:Office of integrative activitiesmajor research instrumentation programnational science foundation, room 9354201 wilson boulevardarlington, va 22230(703) ant information for ion: proposers using orators and other affiliations template for more than project personnel will encounter proposal print . Revised version of the nsf proposal & award policies & procedures guide (pappg) (nsf 18-1), ive for proposals submitted, or due, on or after january 29, 2018. Please be advised that, the specified due date, the guidelines contained in nsf 18-1 may apply to proposals submitted in response to y 1 - january 19, annually major research instrumentation (mri) program serves to increase access to multi-user scientific and engineering instrumentation for research and research training in our nation's institutions of higher education and not-for-profit scientific/engineering research organizations. Additionally, an mri award is expected to enhance research training of students who will become the next generation of instrument users, designers and mri proposal may request up to $4 million for either acquisition or development of a research instrument. Beginning with the fy 2018 competition, each performing organization may submit in revised tracks as defined below, with no more than two submissions in track 1 and no more than one submission in track 1: track 1 mri proposals are those that request funds from nsf greater than or equal to $100,0001 and less than $1,000, 2: track 2 mri proposals are those that request funds from nsf greater than or equal to $1,000,000 up to and including $4,000,tent with the america competes act of 2007 (public law 110-69), cost sharing of precisely 30% of the total project cost is required for ph. Since demographic diversity may be greater among early-career researchers the mri program also encourages proposals with early-career pis and proposals that benefit early-career frequently asked questions (nsf 15-012). Cost sharing of precisely 30% of the total project cost is ing with the fy 2018 competition, each performing organization may submit in revised “tracks” as defined below, with no more than two submissions in track 1 and no more than one submission in track 1: track 1 mri proposals are those that request funds from nsf greater than or equal to $100,000 and less than $1,000, 2: track 2 mri proposals are those that request funds from nsf greater than or equal to $1,000,000 up to and including $4,000, process at nc state for 2018 submissions:The nsf mri program is a tremendous opportunity for nc state to acquire and/or develop cutting- edge instrumentation that serves to expand the pool of shared research resources available to the nc state research community as well as the broader research enterprise in north carolina. This new process was developed to ensure that all proposals submitted to the nsf meet the two above criteria, and maximize the impact of university cost-share funds. Submitting an internal pre-proposal to the research development office (rdo), pis must communicate to their college associate dean for research (adr) their intention to submit an mri pre-proposal. For internal competition, each college will be limited in the amount of proposals they may submit for internal competition, and will be responsible for indicating their college’s equipment priorities. Proposals that request similar instruments will be encouraged to al competition college is limited to three acquisition proposals. There is no limit on development proposals, however, development proposals must otherwise follow the same requirements as acquisition of intent (loi). Letters of intent for only those three proposals (as well as approved development proposals) should be submitted for share commitments. A memo or email message from the sources of cost shares that affirms cost share commitments must be attached to each equipment of proposal track (acquisition or development). Name and college/affiliation of the names of any co-pis/key personnel with college/affiliations ption of probable user base at nc inary budget including amounts and sources of cost al al pre-proposals will be due on thursday 8/24. More details will be provided to the pis of proposals put forth by their als will be reviewed by oried and adrs based on the following criteria:The potential of the equipment to impact research and research training at nc size of the potential user base at nc potential impact of the equipment on external university will be notified of a decision regarding their proposal in ons about your college’s selection process should be directed to your college research questions about this program can be sent to limited-submission@. Submission timeline:This document has been archived and replaced by nsf research instrumentation (mri) program:Instrument acquisition or es document(s):National science of integrative orate for biological orate for computer & information science & orate for education & human orate for orate for orate for mathematical & physical orate for social, behavioral & economic proposal deadline(s) (due by 5 p. Submitter's local time):Second wednesday in january, annually ant information and revision proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised nsf proposal & award policies & procedures guide (pappg) (nsf 15-1). Nsf anticipates release of the pappg in the fall of 2014 and it will be effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after december 26, 2014. Please be advised that proposers who opt to submit prior to december 26, 2014, must also follow the guidelines contained in nsf ge has been added to emphasize that proposals that fail to include in the budget justification a cost table in the format prescribed in the solicitation will be returned without review or description of eligible costs that may be included in the total project cost has been description of who should submit biographical sketches has been guidance for acquisition proposals (track 1) has been modified. For acquisition proposals from institutions required to include cost sharing, grant funds may only be requested for the equipment budget rds may be included in development proposals but not in acquisition proposals unless the submitting organization is a non-ph. Granting institution of higher proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised nsf proposal & award policies & procedures guide (pappg) (nsf 17-1), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after january 30, y of program research instrumentation program (mri). The program provides organizations with opportunities to acquire major instrumentation that supports the research and research training goals of the organization and that may be used by other researchers regionally or mri proposal may request support for the acquisition (track 1) or development (track 2) of a single research instrument for shared inter- and/or intra-organizational use. For the purposes of the mri program, a proposal must be for either acquisition (track 1) or development (track 2) of a single, well-integrated instrument. The mri program does not support the acquisition or development of a suite of instruments to outfit research laboratories or facilities, or that can be used to conduct independent research activities ment acquisition or development proposals that request funds from nsf in the range $100,000-$4 million may be accepted from any mri-eligible organization. Proposals that request funds from nsf less than $100,000 may also be accepted from any mri-eligible organization for the disciplines of mathematics or social, behavioral and economic sciences and from non-ph.
Proposals that request funds from nsf less than $100,000 may also be accepted from any mri-eligible organization for the disciplines of mathematics or social, behavioral and economic sciences, and from non-ph. Granting institutions of higher education for all nsf-supported pated funding amount:Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be competing for about $75 million, pending availability of funds and quality of proposals. Up to $30 million of these funds will be available to support proposals requesting $1-$4 million from nsf, depending on overall proposal pressure and ility may submit proposals:Proposals may only be submitted by the following:Organizations that may apply for the mri program:Submission als may only be submitted by organizations located in the united states, its territories or possessions, as follows:1. Campuses or organizations that plan to submit a proposal through the sponsored projects office of other campuses or organizations should contact nsf to discuss eligibility as early as possible and at least six weeks before submitting such a proposal. Scientists and engineers, and to encourage collaboration and sharing of state-of-the-art instrumentation, the mri program accepts proposals from consortia of organizations. Legally incorporated, not-for-profit consortia including two or more submission-eligible organizations as described in items (1) and (2) above may submit proposals on behalf of the consortium. The cover sheet must clearly indicate the consortium nature of the proposal in the title. Submission-eligible organizations as described in items (1) and (2) above may submit proposals on behalf of consortia. The cover sheet must clearly indicate the consortium nature of the proposal in the title, and it must identify a pi and co-pi(s) from at least two mri submission-eligible organizations participating in the consortium. Organizations, especially small businesses with strong capabilities in scientific or engineering research or education, are eligible for instrument development support only through subawards as private sector partners with submitting organizations; they may not submit proposals. Commercial organizations must be based in the united states, its territories or ctive pis may contact the cognizant mri program officers regarding organizational eligibility, and for information on other nsf funding opportunities for instrumentation; see also section ix for a list of related nsf programs for research -related proposals: the mri program will not accept proposals for an instrument that augments an nsf major research equipment and facilities construction (mrefc) project if that project is not receiving operations funding outside of the mrefc zation mri-eligible organizations belong to one of the following three categories:A. Non-degree-granting organizations also include institutions of higher education that award all of their degrees outside of nsf-supported are no restrictions or on number of proposals per organization:Three (3) as described below. Potential pis are advised to contact their institutional office of research regarding processes used to select proposals for three proposals are submitted, at least one of the proposals must be for instrument development (i. Ensure a balanced instrumentation award portfolio at diverse organizations, across varied research topics, and in support of a broadly inclusive science and engineering workforce across the entire nation, the mri program requires that an mri-eligible organization may, as a performing organization, submit or be included as a significantly funded1 subawardee in no more than three mri proposals. To promote instrumentation development, the program requires that if an organization submits or is included as a significantly funded1 subawardee in three mri proposals, at least one of the three proposals must be for (track 2) instrument reserves the right to carefully examine development (track 2) proposals to ensure that they meet the requirements for this proposal type (see section ii). If a proposal submitted as development is deemed to be an acquisition proposal either before or during the review, the proposal is subject to return without review or decline. Inclusion as a funded subawardee on a development (track 2) proposal at a level in excess of 20% of the total budget requested from nsf, or as a funded subawardee on any acquisition (track 1) proposal, will be counted against an organization's proposal submission limit. Separately submitted linked collaborative proposals of either type (track 1 or track 2) count against the submission limit of each of the submitting organizations. However, if a subaward to an organization in a development (track 2) proposal is 20% or less of the proposal's total budget request from nsf, the subawardee's submission limit will not be affected. For subawards within a linked collaborative proposal, the 20% threshold applies to the budget request from nsf in the proposal containing the subaward(s), not to the combined budget request from nsf for the collaborative : the 30% cost-sharing requirement applies to only the portion of the total project cost budgeted to non-exempt organizations, including those participating through subawards. For specific information on cost-sharing calculations and the solicitation text for definitions of organizational types used for the mri on number of proposals per pi or co-pi:There are no restrictions or al preparation and submission instructions. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further proposal deadline(s) (due by 5 p. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further y of program ility al preparation and submission al preparation ary ne/ proposal processing and review review principles and and selection administration cation of the ing major research instrumentation (mri) program serves to increase access to shared instrumentation for scientific and engineering research and research training in our nation's institutions of higher education and not-for-profit-museums, science centers and scientific/engineering research organizations. The program does not support the operation and maintenance of facilities or america competes act of 2007 (public law 110-69) establishes the maximum award limit for mri proposals commensurate with the budget for the program. Proposals that request funds from nsf in the range $100,000-$4 million will be accepted from all eligible organizations. Proposals that request funds from nsf less than $100,000 will be accepted from all eligible organizations for the disciplines of mathematics or social, behavioral and economic sciences and from non-ph.
Track 1 proposal should request support for the acquisition of a shared, major, state-of-the-art instrument, thereby improving access to, and increased use of, a modern research instrument by scientists, engineers, and students. Track 2 proposal should request support for the development of the next generation of major instrumentation, resulting in a new type of instrument that is more widely used, and/or opens up new areas of research and research the purposes of the mri program, a research instrument may be a piece of cyberinfrastructure (hardware, software or a combination of the two). Proposals for such cyberinfrastructure must meet the overarching mri program criteria, including that they be for the acquisition or development of a single, shared-use, state-of-the art, well-integrated instrument that is operational by the end of the award period, and that they identify specific research or research training uses and users for the proposed instrument. An mri acquisition proposal is characterized by a demonstrated need for the purchase or upgrade of a generally available, yet sophisticated, instrument with little or no modification. A development (track 2) proposal should include a demonstration of the need for a new or extensively upgraded instrument that can provide enhanced or potentially transformative use and performance, open up new areas of research and research training, and/or have potential as a commercial product. A development proposal also tends to involve greater risk to mri program does not consider the acquisition of individual pieces of equipment simply combined in a new system, the mere purchase of an upgrade, or the development of enabling technologies, devices, products or techniques to constitute instrument development. Development proposal with a commercial partner or partners must be substantive, meaningful and build capacity for instrument development within mri submission-eligible organizations; a proposal that "outsources" the development to the commercial partner will be considered to be an acquisition proposal by the mri program. A development proposal must describe the improved performance of the new instrument over existing options and the expected impact of this new instrument on the broader research reserves the right to carefully examine development proposals to ensure that they are appropriate for this proposal category and adequately distinguish between instrument development and instrument acquisition or research. A development proposal must meet the above guidelines to be considered for mri mri program will not support proposal requests that include any of the following:Construction, renovation or modernization of rooms, buildings or research facilities. Proposals should only be submitted by institutions that are willing to undertake the responsibility of maintaining and operating the instrument for the benefit of a community of users engaged in research and research training. Proposals that request funds from nsf less than $100,000 will also be accepted from all eligible organizations for the disciplines of mathematics or social, behavioral and economic sciences and from non-ph. Granting institutions of higher education for all nsf-supported ers may request an award period up to three years for acquisition proposals and up to five years for development proposals. Eligibility may submit proposals:Proposals may only be submitted by the following:Organizations that may apply for the mri program:Submission als may only be submitted by organizations located in the united states, its territories or possessions, as follows:1. Ensure a balanced instrumentation award portfolio at diverse organizations, across varied research topics, and in support of a broadly inclusive science and engineering workforce across the entire nation, the mri program requires that an mri-eligible organization may, as a performing organization, submit or be included as a significantly funded1 subawardee in no more than three mri proposals. For specific information on cost-sharing calculations and the solicitation text for definitions of organizational types used for the mri on number of proposals per pi or co-pi:There are no restrictions or limits. Proposal preparation proposal preparation instructions: proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this program solicitation via or via the nsf fastlane 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. 2 of the gpg for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to nsf. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the gpg ne users: select this mri program solicitation number from the pull down list. Where asked to identify the nsf unit of consideration, select the most appropriate division within an nsf directorate or the most appropriate office to consider your proposal. Selection of more than one unit for consideration may facilitate review of multi-/cross-/inter-/trans-disciplinary efforts when two or more research areas are significantly involved (pis are especially encouraged to submit a list of suggested reviewers, as a single-copy document, for these types of proposals - see the gpg or nsf application guide for additional information). Please note that simultaneously submitted collaborative applications must be submitted via fastlane as does not currently support this project title must be concise and convey the primary purpose of the proposal, e. Please see the gpg for guidance on the inclusion of senior : nsf reserves the right to assign proposals to programs that are deemed to be the most appropriate for review. Proposal must contain a summary of the proposed project not more than one page in length. The categories below do not represent a list of mri-eligible instruments and the information provided has no bearing on proposal acceptance or proposal funding decisions. Only required for track 2 proposals: justification for submission as a development (track 2) proposal (suggested length: up to 1 page).
In this section of the project description you must justify your selection of a track 2 submission by describing the characteristics that qualify your proposal as a development development (track 2) proposals, explicitly address the questions will the the end result of the effort be a stable shared-use instrument, rather than technology development, a device, a product or a technique? All of the above may not be required to qualify for a track 2 proposal, the more of these characteristics that apply, the more solidly the effort fits as a development effort (even if there is substantial acquisition of component parts). Staff and/or reviewers will use this section to evaluate the appropriateness of your proposal for submission as acquisition (track 1) or development (track 2). Proposals submitted as development (track 2), but deemed to be acquisition (track 1) or otherwise inappropriate for track 2 submissions are subject to return without review (if noncompliance is established prior to review) or decline (if noncompliance is established as a result of the merit review). The degree to which the planned uses of the proposed instrumentation constitute exciting, ground-breaking, or transformative research is a significant factor in the merit review evaluation of mri proposals. Development proposals should identify specific users who intend to use the instrument once it has been developed and the specific uses to which they will put section must also include "results from prior nsf mri support" if the pi or any of the co-pis have participated as pis or co-pis in nsf mri awards within the past five-year period. Acquisition proposal should include a technical description of the requested instrumentation, including manufacturer and model number where appropriate. The existence and availability of comparable instrumentation (at organizations in close geographical proximity, or otherwise accessible through collaborations or cyberinfrastructure) should be outlined in the facilities, equipment & other resources - see section 8 a proposal to develop an instrument, present the rationale for the new instrument, the design concept, and the development strategy and methods in sufficient detail to allow for the evaluation of its technical feasibility. Justify the necessity and adequacy of the new instrumentation for the proposed research projects, with reference to instruments that are currently any proposal that purports to represent an integrated research instrument, explain how the acquisition or development effort meets the mri guidance for a well-integrated single instrument in which separating or removing an element or component of such an integrated instrument would preclude the intended experiments from occurring or als involving large collaborations should describe the importance and priority of the requested instrument in the overall efforts being undertaken by the collaboration. Any proposal requesting direct student support in maintenance or development efforts must justify that involvement in terms of both project needs and the training of the next generation of instrumentalists (reviewers will be asked to evaluate the appropriateness of this type of involvement). Proposals should also address whether and, if so, how the instrument will broaden the participation in science and engineering research by women, underrepresented minorities (african americans, hispanics, native americans, alaska natives, and native hawaiians), and persons with als requesting over $1 million should address the potential impact of the instrument on the research community of interest and at the regional or national level when appropriate. These should include:For both instrument acquisition (track 1) and development (track 2) proposals:A description of the space or the facility in which the instrument will be placed. Include information on anticipated usage and ient detail should be given to enable reviewers to evaluate whether the appropriate technical expertise and infrastructure to allow effective usage of the instrument will be available, and whether effective multi-user accessibility will be instrument development proposals (track 2) only. Academic, industrial, or government laboratories, and/or by commercializing the ient detail should be provided to allow reviewers to analyze the likely success, cost and benefit of the development : proposals for the acquisition or development of an instrument to be located at an organization other than, or away from, the submitting organization must describe the rationale for performance of all or part of the project at the specified location(s) and provide, if appropriate, a (one-page maximum) supplementary document providing the host organization's commitment to house the instrument. In accordance with the grant proposal guide, the proposal must include two-page biographical sketches of the pi and any co-pi(s) (i. If that person is not a pi, co-pi or listed on the budget form among the senior personnel, then that person's biographical sketch (in the form described in the grant proposal guide) should be included as a supplementary document. Proposals that do not include such a table in the budget justification will be returned without total project cost (tpc) is the sum of the last two cells in the last two columns in the last budget items, whether costs associated with funds requested from nsf or with items contributed as cost sharing (including those for maintenance in acquisition proposals and personnel support in development proposals) must be well-justified and commensurate with the scale and complexity of the instrument and/or development budget justification must explain the basis of the cost estimate. For acquisition proposals, at least 70% of the total project cost must consist of items that can be included on the equipment line of the nsf budget form, (line d). Historically, the fraction of the total project cost for mri acquisition proposals devoted to equipment has been much higher than 70%, on average, and institutions are encouraged to continue to use acquisition awards for equipment and for the maintenance required to keep that equipment operational. Users of should note that, because of way works, reviewers of their proposals may not see the supplementary documents in the order listed. For all proposals: for each organization receiving funds, provide on institutional letterhead from each sponsored projects office, the following statement classifying the organization(s) as either non-ph. For all proposals: include a letter documenting the institution's commitment to ensuring successful operations and maintenance over the expected lifetime of the instrument. For all proposals: all proposals must include a supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled "data management plan". Although a proposal might reference and have a quote(s) for a specific make and model, the proposer is reminded that his/her organization's approved procurement processes must be utilized to establish the appropriate item(s) to be purchased and that applicable procurement standards for institutions of higher education and other non-profit organizations are described in 2 cfr 215. When applicable: proposals that include subawards (except for development proposals with subawards to institutions that do not exceed 20% of the total amount requested from nsf), must include a statement from each subawardee's sponsored projects office, acknowledging that this proposal is included as part of the subawardee institution's submission limit. Otherwise, an organization may exceed its submission limit, with the result that the proposal including the subaward may be returned without review.
When 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. Proposals involving large collaborations are encouraged to utilize this letter to document the priority of the requested instrument in the overall efforts being undertaken by the collaboration. When applicable: if the proposal involves organizations other than the submitting organization, list all partners. When applicable: proposals for the acquisition or development of an instrument to be located at an organization other than the submitting organization must provide a (one-page maximum) supplementary document stating the host organization's commitment to house the instrument. To: nsf mri signing below i acknowledge that i am listed as a collaborator and/or major user of the instrument on this mri proposal, entitled "_______(proposal title)_______," with _______(pi name)______ as the principal investigator. I agree to undertake the tasks assigned to me, as described in the proposal, and i commit to provide or make available the resources therein designated to : _______________________ print name:_______________________________. The proposal body itself should describe the nature and need for a collaboration, and/or describe the major users and their need for the instrument. Requests to collaborators for these statements should be made by the pi well in advance of the proposal submission deadline, since, if they are to be included, they must be included at the time of the proposal submission. Impact statements and eligibility statements from the nsf "facilitating research at primarily undergraduate institutions" program are not allowed; the certification statement indicating the type of performing organization, as defined by the mri program, is instead required for all mri proposals. Proposers are encouraged to submit a list of suggested reviewers (including affiliation) whom they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal as a "single-copy document"; this is especially encouraged for multi/inter/trans-disciplinary proposals. The following information applies only for those mri proposals that will be reviewed in the division of polar programs:B. Budgetary sharing is see the full text of this solicitation for further proposed cost sharing must be shown on line m on the proposal budget. Any proposal including students or post-doctoral associates in operations and maintenance should justify the involvement in terms of both instrument needs and the training the next generation of instrumentalists. Any proposal requesting direct student support in development efforts must justify the involvement in terms of both project needs and training the next generation of instrumentalists. Publication costs associated with the dissemination of information about the design and capabilities of the the instrument are eligible : a supplementary data management plan is required for all nsf proposals. Full proposal preparation instructions):___ is the proposal properly identified as “mri: acquisition”, “mri: development”, “mriconsortium: acquisition”, or “mriconsortium: development” on the cover sheet? If the instrument is to be placed at a facility of another federal agency or one of their ffrdcs, has the proposal been properly structured and identified as a consortium proposal? Full proposal preparation instructions):___ is the project description 15 pages or less in length, and does it also separately address both intellectual merit and broader impacts? When appropriate, does section a2 of the project description clearly convey that the proposal is for instrument development (track 2)? If applicable, is there a statement from the subawardee sponsored projects office certifying that this proposal is included in the organization’s proposal limit? If the proposal is for acquisition (track 1), is at least 70% of the total project cost for items that can be included on the equipment line of the budget? If the proposal is for acquisition (track 1), and the cost of a maintenance contract or service contract is to be included in cost-sharing, is this described in the budget justification? If yes and if the proposal is for acquisition (track 1), are entries on the nsf budget form limited to equipment and cost sharing? Have all subawardees (when applicable) included statements acknowledging that this proposal is included in their submission limit? Granting, or non-degree-granting; see section iv for definitions of organization type as used by the mri able proposals that do not indicate appropriate levels of cost-sharing, including required documentation demonstrating organizational cost-sharing commitment (sections v. Proposals that do not contain "results from prior mri support" or (if there is no prior mri support) results from other nsf support in the project description (section v.
Fastlane/ proposals submitted via fastlane:To prepare and submit a proposal via fastlane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https:///a1/. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the nsf program staff contact(s) listed in section viii of this funding proposals submitted via :Before using for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the nsf program staff contact(s) listed in section viii of this ting the proposal: once all documents have been completed, the authorized organizational representative (aor) must submit the application to and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. Nsf proposal processing and review als 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. 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. 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. A flowchart that depicts the entire nsf proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in pappg exhibit ers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of nsf's mission, as articulated in investing in science, engineering, and education for the nation's future: nsf strategic plan for 2014-2018. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. Merit review 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. Merit review nsf proposals are evaluated through use of the two national science board approved merit review criteria. Contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the project description section of the proposal). I), prior to the review of a 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; r impacts: the broader impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:What is the potential for the proposed activity e knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (intellectual merit); t society or advance desired societal outcomes (broader impacts)? If student involvement is included, reviewers will be asked to evaluate the involvement in terms of both instrument needs and training the next generation of for using the new or enhanced capability in research or research instrument acquisition proposals of $1 million or above, the potential impact of the instrument on the research community of interest at the regional or national level, when ment development proposals:The appropriateness of submission as a development (track 2) adequacy of the management plan. Review and selection als submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed hoc review and/or panel ers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two national science board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. The program officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a 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 interval ends when the division director acts upon the program officer's 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. 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 an award or declination decision has been made, principal investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant nsf program administering the program. 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. No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the pi also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general e 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.
Short description of the management plan, noting deviations from the plan as described in the proposal;. 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. The foundation accounts for about one-fourth of federal support to academic institutions for basic receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. Nsf information center):Tdd (for the hearing-impaired):To order publications or forms:To locate nsf employees:Privacy act and public burden 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. 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). If three proposals are submitted, at least one of the proposals must be for instrument development (track 2) (i. An organization submits or is included as a partner or subawardee in three proposals, at least one of the three proposals must be for track 2: instrument development. Of subawardees: to ensure a balanced instrumentation award portfolio at diverse organizations, across varied research topics, and in support of a broadly inclusive science and engineering workforce across the entire nation, the mri program requires that an mri-eligible organization may, as a performing organization, submit or be included as a significantly funded* subawardee in no more than three mri proposals. To promote instrumentation development, the program requires that if an organization submits or is included as a significantly funded* subawardee in three mri proposals, at least one of the three proposals must be for (track 2) instrument development. Inclusion as a funded subawardee on a development (track 2) proposal at a level in excess of 20% of the total budget requested from nsf, or as a funded subawardee on any acquisition (track 1) proposal, will be counted against an organization's proposal submission limit. Slac] proposals (see the guidelines: http:///pubs/2015/nsf15504/#als for the acquisition or development of an instrument to be located at a facility of another federal agency or one of their federally funded research and development centers (ffrdcs) must be submitted as a consortium proposal by an mri submission-eligible organization as described in item 3(b) above. The proposal must include the facility/ffrdc (or its managing organization) as a partner in the consortium, even if the role of the ffrdc in the project is solely to house the instrument. Preliminary inquiry to the cognizant mri point of contact should be made before preparing a proposal for :if it is for an instrument to be housed at slac, then the pi for the proposal must be a stanford faculty member with a primary appointment in a department on campus. That faculty member must submit an internal proposal, per the internal submission guidelines below, as a “consortium” proposal, with slac as a “partner”. Acquisition or development proposals that request funds from nsf in the range $100,000-$4 million will be accepted from all eligible organizations. Granting institutions of higher education and for non-degree-granting the internal submission guidelines at the end of this message which contain instructions for the department chair letter which should acknowledge the department's commitment to find matching funds for the required cost sharing of 30% of total eligible project costs should the internal proposal be nominated. If the proposal is interdisciplinary, please have the letter signed by the co-pi's department chair as le fields of science and als for instrumentation will be considered for all nsf-supported fields of science, mathematics, and engineering. Proposals will be considered for instrumentation used for nsf-supported fields of science, mathematics, and/or l research restriction: the program will not provide support for instrumentation to be used in medical education (such as medical school courses). Mri proposal must conform to the program's primary goals of:Supporting the acquisition of a shared major state-of-the-art instrument, thereby improving access to, and increased use of, a modern research and research training instrument by scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students; ing the development of next generation of major instrumentation, resulting in a new type of instrument that is more widely used, and/or open up new areas of research and research training; ng academic departments, disciplinary and cross-disciplinary units, and organizations and multi-organization collaborations to integrate research with education and thereby enhance research training of the next generation of scientists and mri program assists in the acquisition or development of major research instrumentation that is, in general, too costly or not appropriate for support through other nsf programs. An mri proposal must be for either the acquisition or development of a single instrument or for equipment that when combined serves as an integrated research instrument. Instrument acquisition (track 1) an acquisition (track 1) proposal is characterized by a purchase requiring limited personnel and having little risk to complete. Instrument development (track 2) a development (track 2) proposal is characterized by a demonstrated need for a new or extensively upgraded instrument that can provide enhanced or potentially transformative use and performance, open up new areas of research and research training, and/or have potential as a commercial product. A development proposal also tends to involve greater risk to mri program will not support proposal requests for any of the following:Construction, renovation or modernization of rooms, buildings or research facilities - this category refers to the space where sponsored or unsponsored research activities (including research training) occur, whether "bricks-and-mortar", mobile, or virtual;. Any proposal including students or post-doctoral associates in operations and maintenance should justify the involvement in terms of both instrument needs and the training the next generation of instrumentalists.
- scientific research paper writing service
- how to write a market analysis for a business plan
- i will you
Please submit one pdf file of the following (specifying whether for instrument development or acquisition proposal), of the following to:Limited submission program coordinator-dean of research g opportunity administrator-research management ele@ file name format: last name_nsf_ do not have to submit your internal proposals through your institutional representatives (rpm/rmg or osr contract officers) for their approval. Project title (which should identify the scientific discipline(s) for which the instrumentation is requested, should convey the primary purpose of the proposal. Acquisition of ________" or "development of ______" and should specify if the proposal is being submitted by a consortium. Department chair letter- this letter should acknowledge the department's commitment to find matching funds for the required cost sharing of 30% of total eligible project costs should the internal proposal be nominated. If the proposal is interdisciplinary, please have the letter signed by the co-pi's department chair as the stanford faculty member is participating as a significantly funded subawardee (see the subawardee section above), then the letter must acknowledge the department's commitment to find matching funds for the required cost sharing. For proposals requesting over $1 million: should address the potential impact of the instrument on the research community of interest and at the regional or national level when appropriate. 10, rd resources to help regarding your proposal:Instrumentation resources:In order for stanford university to make best use of its resources and to comply with federal regulations, best practices on major instrumentation acquisition are offered as guidelines to help support the research mission of the departments, labs, and schools through the department property administrator (dpa) is a key resource to use in searching for currently available, similar equipment. Management office (pmo) is also available to provide lists of like-equipment early in the proposal preparation process. Submitter's local time):January 29, 2018 - february 05, y 01, 2019 - january 22, y 1 - january 19, annually ant information and revision number of mri proposal submissions allowed per institution continues to be a maximum of three, but is now based on the dollar value of the amount requested from nsf; no more than two submissions are permitted in a newly-defined track 1 (track 1 proposals are those requesting from nsf $100,0001 to less than $1 million) and no more than one submission is permitted in a newly defined track 2 (track 2 proposals are those requesting from nsf $1 million up to and including $4 million). Proposal submissions within the two tracks may be either for acquisition or development of a research instrument. Nsf strongly values mri proposals that seek to develop next-generation research instruments that open new frontiers of research. Since diversity may be greater among early-career researchers, the mri program also encourages proposals with early-career pis and proposals that benefit early-career proposal submission will only be accepted within the specified submission window. It is nsf's policy that the end date of a submission window converts to, and is subject to, the same policies as a deadline ation regarding collaborators and other affiliations must be separately provided as a single copy document for each individual identified as senior personnel, consistent with the nsf proposal and award policies and procedures guide (pappg). Track 1 proposals requesting funds from nsf less than $100,000 will be accepted only from: a) eligible performing organizations requesting instrumentation supporting research in the disciplines of mathematics or social, behavioral and economic sciences; or b) non-ph. Granting institutions of higher education requesting instrumentation supporting research in any nsf-supported proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised nsf proposal & award policies & procedures guide (pappg) (nsf 18-1), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after january 29, 2018. Beginning with the fy 2018 competition, each performing organization may submit in revised "tracks" as defined below, with no more than two submissions in track 1 and no more than one submission in track 1: track 1 mri proposals are those that request funds from nsf greater than or equal to $100,0001 and less than $1,000, 2: track 2 mri proposals are those that request funds from nsf greater than or equal to $1,000,000 up to and including $4,000,tent with the america competes act of 2007 (public law 110-69), cost sharing of precisely 30% of the total project cost is required for ph. Since demographic diversity may be greater among early-career researchers the mri program also encourages proposals with early-career pis and proposals that benefit early-career ant program officer(s):Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. Type of award: standard ted number of awards: to 150 awards are anticipated depending on the available budget and the number and quality of pated funding amount: $75,000,als submitted in response to this program solicitation will be competing for up to $75 million, pending availability of funds and numbers/quality of proposals, with approximately 1/3 of the available mri funding expected to support track 2 awards. Nsf strongly encourages mri proposals that seek to develop next-generation research instruments that open new frontiers of research; therefore up to 1/3 of the mri awards are expected to support instrument development in either track; therefore within their submission limit organizations are encouraged to submit proposals for innovative development ility may submit proposals:Proposals may only be submitted by the following:Organizations that may apply for the mri program:Submission als may only be submitted by organizations located in the united states, its territories or possessions, as follows. Campuses or organizations that plan to submit a proposal through the sponsored projects office of other campuses or organizations should contact nsf to discuss eligibility as early as possible and at least six weeks before submitting such a proposal. Legally incorporated, not-for-profit consortia that include two or more submission-eligible organizations as described in items (1) and (2) above may submit proposals on behalf of the consortium. The cover sheet must clearly indicate the consortium nature of the proposal in the title. Submission-eligible organizations as described in items (1) and (2) above may submit, as part of their limit, proposals on behalf of consortia. The cover sheet of such a proposal must a) clearly indicate the consortium nature of the proposal in the title, and b) it must identify both a pi and co-pi(s) from at least two mri submission-eligible organizations (items 1 and/or 2 above) as lead investigators in the consortium. Small businesses with strong capabilities in scientific or engineering research or education, are eligible for instrument development support through subawards/subcontracts as private sector partners with submitting organizations; they may not submit proposals. Since demographic diversity may be greater among early-career researchers the mri program also encourages proposals with early-career pis and proposals that benefit early-career on number of proposals per organization:Three (3) as described below.
Potential pis are advised to contact their institutional office of research regarding processes used to select proposals for mri program requires that an mri-eligible organization may, as a performing organization, submit or be included as a significantly funded3 subawardee in no more than three mri proposals. Beginning with this competition, each performing organization is now limited to a maximum of three proposals in revised "tracks" as defined below, with no more than two submissions in track 1 and no more than one submission in track 2. Any mri proposal may request support for either the acquisition or development of a research instrument. Within their submission limit, nsf strongly encourages organizations to submit proposals for innovative development mri proposal may request support for either the acquisition or development of a research 1: track 1 mri proposals are those that request funds from nsf greater than or equal to $100,0001 and less than $1,000, 2: track 2 mri proposals are those that request funds from nsf greater than or equal to $1,000,000 up to and including $4,000,: the 30% cost-sharing requirement applies to only the portion of the total project cost budgeted to non-exempt organizations, including those participating through subawards. Inclusion as a funded subawardee on a development proposal at a level in excess of 20% of the total budget requested from nsf, or as a funded subawardee, when allowed, on any acquisition proposal, will be counted against an organization's proposal submission limit. Separately submitted linked collaborative proposals count against the submission limit of each of the submitting organizations. However, if a subaward to an organization in a development proposal is 20% or less of the proposal's total budget request from nsf, the subawardee's submission limit will not be affected. For subawards within a linked collaborative proposal, the 20% threshold applies to the budget request from nsf in the proposal containing the subaward(s), not to the combined budget request from nsf for the collaborative on number of proposals per pi or co-pi:There are no restrictions or al preparation and submission instructions. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further of contentssummary of program requirements introductionprogram descriptionaward informationeligibility informationproposal preparation and submission instructions proposal preparation instructionsbudgetary informationdue dates fastlane/ requirementsnsf proposal processing and review procedures merit review principles and criteriareview and selection processaward administration information notification of the awardaward conditionsreporting requirementsagency contactsother goal of the major research instrumentation (mri) program is to increase access to shared-use/multi-user instrumentation for scientific and engineering research and research training. For development proposals the program seeks to leverage the strengths of private sector partners to build instrument development capacity at mri submission-eligible supports instrumentation across nsf's directorates and divisions. Background america competes act (aca) of 2007 (public law 110-69) establishes the maximum award limit for mri proposals commensurate with the appropriated budget for the program. Proposals that request funds from nsf less than $100,000 will be accepted only from all eligible organizations for the disciplines of mathematics or social, behavioral and economic sciences and from non-ph. General mri proposal may request support for the acquisition or development of a research instrument or components that when combined serve as an integrated research instrument. Instrument science and engineering research enterprise relies on the availability of modern instrumentation, much of which can be acquired with little or no modification from existing sources, an mri acquisition proposal is characterized by a purchase or upgrade of a generally available, yet sophisticated, instrument with little or no modification and risk. A development proposal should demonstrate the need for a new or extensively upgraded instrument with new performance, enabling enhanced or potentially transformative research opportunities, open up new areas of research and research training and/or have potential as a commercial product. A development proposal also tends to involve greater risk to complete, requiring a risk mitigation mri program does not consider the acquisition of components simply combined in a new system, the mere purchase of an upgrade, early-phase enabling technology development, or the development of devices, products or techniques/protocols to constitute instrument development. Development proposal with a commercial partner(s) must be substantive, meaningful and build capacity for instrument development within mri submission-eligible organizations; a proposal that "outsources" the development to the commercial partner will be considered to be an acquisition proposal by the mri program. A development proposal must describe the improved performance of the new instrument over existing options and the expected impact of this new instrument on the broader research -related proposals: proposals for the acquisition or development of an instrument involving another federal agency or one of their federally funded research and development centers (ffrdcs)4 must be submitted as a consortium proposal by an mri submission-eligible organization as described in item 3(b) under "eligibility information". In addition to at least two mri submission-eligible organizations, the proposal must include the agency/ffrdc (or its managing organization) as a partner in the consortium, even if the role of the ffrdc in the project is solely to house the instrument. Preliminary inquiry to the cognizant mri point of contact should be made before preparing a proposal for mri program will not support proposal requests that include the following:Construction, renovation or modernization of rooms, buildings or research facilities. Proposals should only be submitted by institutions that are willing to undertake the responsibility of maintaining and operating the instrument for the benefit of a community of users engaged in research and research training. Eligibility may submit proposals:Proposals may only be submitted by the following:Organizations that may apply for the mri program:Submission als may only be submitted by organizations located in the united states, its territories or possessions, as follows. Potential pis are advised to contact their institutional office of research regarding processes used to select proposals for mri program requires that an mri-eligible organization may, as a performing organization, submit or be included as a significantly funded6 subawardee in no more than three mri proposals. For subawards within a linked collaborative proposal, the 20% threshold applies to the budget request from nsf in the proposal containing the subaward(s), not to the combined budget request from nsf for the collaborative on number of proposals per pi or co-pi:There are no restrictions or limits. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the pappg ne users: select this mri program solicitation number from the pull down list. Selection of more than one unit for consideration may facilitate review of multi-/cross-/inter-/trans-disciplinary efforts when two or more research areas are significantly involved (pis are especially encouraged to submit a list of suggested reviewers, as a single-copy document, for these types of proposals - see the pappg for additional information).
Please see the nsf pappg for definitions of senior : nsf reserves the right to assign proposals to programs that are deemed to be the most appropriate for review. Please note that a separate section labeled "intellectual merit", as specified in the pappg, is not required for proposals submitted to this solicitation. Only required for development proposals: justification for submission as a development proposal (suggested length: up to 1 page). In this subsection of the project description, when appropriate, you must justify the characteristics that qualify your proposal as a development proposal. All of the above may not be required to qualify for a development proposal, the more of these characteristics that apply, the more solidly the effort fits as a development effort (even if there is substantial acquisition of component parts). Reviewers and nsf staff will use this section to evaluate the merits of your proposal in meeting the goals for an mri instrument development project. The degree to which the planned uses of the proposed instrumentation constitute exciting, ground-breaking and/or transformative research is a significant factor in the merit review evaluation of mri proposals. Development proposals should identify researchers who intend to use the instrument once it has been developed and the research uses to which they will put section must also include "results from prior nsf support" (see required information in the pappg) if the pi or any of the co-pis have participated as pis or co-pis in nsf awards with a start date within the past five-year period. Acquisition proposal should include a technical description of the requested instrumentation and clearly explain how the planned research drives the instrumentation request. Proposal to develop an instrument must clearly explain how the planned research drives the needed instrument capabilities and make clear that those capabilities are not available through an instrument purchase. The proposal must succinctly present the design concept, the development strategy and project execution in sufficient detail to allow for the evaluation of the project's feasibility. Proposal integrating components that when combined serve as a single research instrument must justify the request in the context of the mri goal of providing support for individual research instruments. Proposals should also address whether, and if so how well, the instrument will broaden the participation in science and engineering research by women, underrepresented minorities and persons with : proposals requesting over $1 million should address the potential impact of the instrument on the research community of interest at the regional or national level. Include information on anticipated usage and ient detail should be given to enable reviewers to evaluate whether the appropriate technical expertise and infrastructure to allow effective usage of the instrument will be available, and whether effective multi-user accessibility will be instrument development proposals only. The proposal must include two-page biographical sketches of the pi and any co-pi(s) (i. Proposals that do not include such a table in the budget justification are subject to return without total project cost (tpc) is the sum of the last two cells in the last two columns of the last budget items, whether associated with funds requested from nsf or with items contributed as cost sharing (including those for maintenance in acquisition proposals and personnel support in development proposals) must be well-justified and commensurate with the scale and complexity of the instrument and/or development budget justification must explain the basis of the cost estimate. For acquisition proposals, at least 70% of the total project cost must consist of items that can be included on the equipment line of the nsf budget form (line d). Historically, the fraction of the total project cost for mri acquisition proposals devoted to equipment has been much higher than 70%, on average, and institutions are encouraged to continue to use acquisition awards for equipment and for the maintenance required to keep that equipment operational. Users of should note that, because of way works, reviewers of their proposals may not see the supplementary documents in the order listed. However, the inclusion of the list will help nsf staff and reviewers ensure that no items are all proposals: for each organization receiving funds, provide on institutional letterhead from each sponsored projects office, the following statement classifying the organization(s) as either non-ph. No other letter(s)/statement(s) classifying or describing the institution type(s) will be all proposals: include a letter documenting the performing institution's commitment to ensuring successful operations and maintenance over the expected lifetime of the instrument. This letter (two-page maximum) must also list the mri awards made to the organization with a start date in the previous five calendar years and briefly describe the status of the instrumentation obtained from each applicable: a letter (one-page maximum) documenting the organization's commitment for cost sharing, if applicable, must be applicable: proposals that include subawards (except for development proposals with subawards to institutions that do not exceed 20% of the total amount requested from nsf) must include a statement from each subawardee's sponsored projects office acknowledging that this proposal is included as part of the subawardee institution's submission limit. Otherwise, an organization may exceed its submission limit, with the result that the proposal including the subaward may be returned without applicable: if a proposed effort involves a private sector partner or other organization serving as a partner (as opposed to an individual(s)), or a large formalized collaboration (e. In particular, proposals involving large formalized collaborations are encouraged to have the collaboration utilize this letter to document the role, importance and priority of the requested instrument in the overall efforts being undertaken by the applicable: if the proposal involves organizations other than the performing organization, list all applicable: proposals for the acquisition or development of an instrument to be located at an organization other than the performing organization must provide a (one-page maximum) supplementary document stating the host organization's commitment to house the instrument. For the purposes of this solicitation, use of instruments at nsf's antarctic facilities is considered to be field deployment and a supplementary document from the host facility is not all proposals. Although a proposal might reference and have a quote(s) for a specific make and model, the proposer is reminded that his/her organization's approved procurement processes must be utilized in the event of an award to establish the appropriate item(s) to be purchased and that applicable procurement standards for institutions of higher education and other non-profit organizations are described in 2 cfr 215.
Statements from individuals, on institutional letterhead, confirming substantive collaboration efforts and/or usage of the instrument may be submitted, but they must follow only the format indicated : nsf mri signing below i acknowledge that i am listed as a collaborator and/or major user of the instrument on this mri proposal, entitled "_______(proposal title)_______," with _______(pi name)______ as the principal investigator. Proposal body itself should describe the nature and need for a collaboration, and/or describe the major users and their need for the instrument. Pi requests to collaborators for these statements should be made well in advance of the proposal submission deadline since, if they are to be included, they must be included at the time of the proposal ents of collaboration beyond that specified above, including letters of support/endorsement, are not statements and eligibility statements from the nsf "facilitating research at primarily undergraduate institutions" program are not allowed. The certification statement indicating the type of performing organization, as defined by the mri program, is instead required for all mri ntation that refers to other proposals being submitted by an organization (e. When applicable: each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Please note that proposers using the coa template for more than 10 senior project personnel will encounter proposal print preview issues. Proposers are encouraged to submit a list of suggested reviewers (including affiliation) whom they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal as a "single-copy document"; this is especially encouraged for multi-/inter-/trans-disciplinary proposals. The 30% cost-sharing requirement applies to only the portion of the total project cost budgeted to non-exempt organizations, including those participating through proposed cost sharing must be shown on line m on the proposal budget. Any proposal including students or post-doctoral associates in operations and maintenance should justify the involvement in terms of both instrument needs and the training the next generation of instrumentalists; reviewers will be asked to evaluate the appropriateness of this type of involvement. Mri support for research, research training, or education/outreach to be conducted using the instrument after commissioning is also not acquisition proposals, at least 70% of the total project cost must consist of items that can be included on the equipment line of the nsf budget form (line d). Any proposal requesting direct student support in development efforts must justify the involvement in terms of both project needs and training the next generation of instrumentalists; reviewers will be asked to evaluate the appropriateness of this type of involvement. For development proposals, publication costs associated with the dissemination of information about the design and capabilities of the instrument are eligible costs. Support for research, research training, or education to be conducted using the instrument after commissioning, along with operations and maintenance, is not : a data management plan is required for mri proposals. Are font sizes and margins consistent with the proposal and award policies and procedures guide (pappg)? Full proposal preparation instructions):____ is the proposal properly identified as "mri: acquisition", "mri: development", "mri consortium: acquisition", or "mri consortium: development" on the cover sheet? Note: the office of integrative activities (oia) is not an appropriate choice for proposal review. Full proposal preparation instructions):____ is the project description 15 pages or less in length, and does it also separately address both intellectual merit and broader impacts? Appropriate, does the project description clearly convey how the proposal is appropriate for consideration as instrument development? If applicable, is there a statement from the subawardee sponsored projects office certifying that this proposal is included in the organization's proposal limit? If the proposal is for acquisition for an institution is required to cost share, is at least 70% of the total project cost for items that can be included on the equipment line of the budget? If the proposal is for acquisition, and the cost of a maintenance contract or service contract is to be included in cost sharing, is this described in the budget justification? If yes and if the proposal is for acquisition, are entries on the nsf budget form limited to equipment and cost sharing? That do not conform to font, margin and page als that do not contain an overview and separate statements on intellectual merit and broader impacts in the project able proposals that do not clearly justify submission as development als that do not contain a management plan in the project description (section v. The mentoring plan must not exceed one able proposals to place an instrument at a facility of another federal agency or one of their ffrdcs that are not submitted by consortia (section iv). Proposals for instruments that augment the scope of an nsf major research equipment and facilities construction (mrefc) project that is not receiving operations funding outside of the mrefc account (section iv). Nsf proposal processing and review als received by nsf are assigned to the appropriate nsf program for acknowledgment and, if they meet nsf requirements, for review.
- nursing research paper writing service
- american doctoral dissertations
- operation plan in business plan
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 ers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the data management plan and the postdoctoral researcher mentoring plan, as onal solicitation specific review the evaluation criteria stated above, reviewers will assess the following:The extent to which the proposed project will make a substantial improvement in the organization's capabilities to conduct leading-edge research, to provide research experiences for undergraduate students using leading-edge capabilities, and to broaden the participation in science and engineering research (especially as lead pis) by women, underrepresented minorities, persons with disabilities and/or early-career ment acquisition extent to which the instrument is used for multi-user, shared-use research and/or research r the management plan demonstrates sufficient commitment and technical expertise for effective scheduling and usage of the organization's commitment to ensuring successful operations and maintenance over the expected lifetime of the r the research to be enabled is compelling and justifies the instrument r the budget request is appropriate and well student involvement is in the form of direct support for operations and maintenance of the instrument, reviewers will be asked to evaluate the involvement in terms of both instrument needs and the training of the next generation of instrument acquisition proposals of $1 million or above, the potential impact of the instrument on the research community of interest at the regional or national level, if ment development proposals:The appropriateness of submission as a development need for development of a new instrument. Review and selection als submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by ad hoc review and/or panel ers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two national science board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. Eisenhower avenue, alexandria, va general information(nsf information center):Tdd (for the hearing-impaired):To order publications or forms:To locate nsf employees:Privacy act and public burden information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the national science foundation act of 1950, as amended.
