# NSF (National Science Foundation) Tags: #organization ![[nsf-org.png]] ## Applying for National Science Foundation Funding > [!tip] > **Small Businesses:** There are a lot of requirements to do business with the federal government! This section only documents the steps specific to the NSF. Read more about the general process here: [[us federal funding]] ### Registering a Small Business to Submit Proposals A UEI is required before you can complete any of the following steps. See [[us federal funding#Registering on SAM.gov]]. > [!warning] > It can take a month or more to get a UEI, and then several days for changes to appear in Research.gov, and several more days for account updates to complete. Start the process well in advance of a proposal due date. Request the following roles in _My Profile_ > _Organizations and Roles_ > _Add a New Role_: - **Principal Investigator / co-Principal Investigator (PI):** allows you to prepare proposals - **Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR):** allows you to submit proposals Once you have requested to add the roles to your account, you (the Administrator) need to approve them. Go into _My Profile_ > _Organizations and Roles_ > _View My Users_, and find the _Pending Role Requests_ table, then click approve for each role. Roles take 24-48 hours to update in Research.gov, so make sure you have BOTH roles far in advance of your submission deadline. Just being a PI and Administrator is not enough, you MUST have the AOR role as well. ### Involuntary Cost Sharing; Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing Prohibition Some NSF programs require that applicants find a co-funder to cover some percentage of the costs. This could be a cash grant from a third-party, in-kind donations, or a commitment from the organization to cover a percentage of costs from its own budgets. This is "Involuntary Cost Sharing", and records to substantiate the cost sharing must be maintained. On the other hand, NSF prohibits "voluntary committed cost sharing", meaning organizations cannot _volunteer_ to provide additional funding for the proposed program in a proposal. (They're not prohibited from ultimately doing so, but it cannot be included in the proposal.) The reason for this prohibition is to prevent more wealthy organizations from outspending smaller organizations in order to create more ambitious proposals. Things which seem like voluntary committed cost sharing can often be reframed to fit into the Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources section of an NSF proposal. ### Advice on Writing the Proposal - [Lessons from Serving on NSF Panels](https://smallpondscience.com/2017/01/02/lessons-from-serving-on-nsf-panels/) ([archive](https://archive.ph/VkUOB)) #### Mentoring Plan - How will grad students be evaluated? - Lab culture - Checking in explicitly ### Collaboration Letters NSF generally does not accept letters of support; collaborators cannot endorse the proposal. Collaboration letters must strictly state the organization or individual's intent to collaborate or nothing more. NSF recommends the following format (although many organizations do provide somewhat more detail): ``` [INSERT YOUR ORGANIZATION'S LETTERHEAD] [DATE] Dear NSF Proposal Review Committee: If the proposal submitted by [PROSPECTIVE GRANTEE] entitled "[PROPOSAL TITLE]" is selected for funding by the NSF, it is [ORGANIZATION]'s intent to collaborate and/or commit resources as detailed in the Project Description or the Facilities, Equipment or Other Resources section of the proposal. Sincerely, [SIGNATURE] [NAME] [TITLE] ``` ### Merit Review Process NSF takes approximately 6 months to conduct a merit review, comprising: 1. Program officer selects peer reviewers 2. Peer review 3. Program officer summarizes input and makes recommendation to division director based on feedback and the portfolio of projects they want to fund 4. Division director reviews Very little direct insight into this process is provided, however Research.gov indirectly reveals some information: - The _Proposal Status_ page has relatively little information about the status of a proposal (it seems to only show "Pending", "Recommended", or "Awarded"), but the Status Date changes whenever the proposal is moved between internal stages at NSF. - The _Prepare and Submit Proposals_ section shows "Submitted to NSF (Due Date Passed or Assigned for Review)" for a proposal only once it's been assigned to a review panel. Once a decision is reached, the individual reviews and panel summary can be downloaded from the _Proposal Status Page_. #### Ad-Hoc and Panel Reviews NSF will solicit experts to review proposals each review cycle, and group them into a panel (having some diversity of viewpoints and some overlap) to review a set of relevant proposals using the following process: - **Assignment:** 2-3 weeks before the panel, panelists will read their assigned proposals. Conflicts of interest are also declared at this stage.Typically, not everyone will be assigned to read every proposal. - **Reviews and rating:** Before the panel, panelists will write a review comprising: an objective synopsis of the proposal, strengths/weaknesses in intellectual merit and broader impacts, and a summary of the review. Each review also includes a rating: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, or No Rating. Panelists cannot see others reviews until they have submitted a review (or in some cases not at all). - **Triage:** At the start of the panel, proposals which received no high ratings (Excellent or Very Good) will be "triaged". These proposals will not be discussed in the panel as long as all panelists agree not to discuss them. The substance of triaged proposals cannot be discussed at all at any point in the panel. In my experience more than half of proposals will be triaged. - **Panel Discussion:** Remaining proposals will be discussed. Usually, the assigned Scribe will read their review first, and other reviewers will add points in turn, as well as some discussion or argument. - **Panel Summaries:** Scribes will write a summary of the panel discussion, generally using the same format as the individual reviews. Each panelist can comment or suggest edits on the reviews using a Google Docs style interface. - **Binning (Panel Rating):** The panel will agree on a panel rating for all proposals that were not triaged: - Highly Competitive - contains significant intellectual merit and/or broader impacts; panel advises the proposal be given high priority for support - Competitive - panel advises proposal could be supported if funds available - Not Competitive - panel advises the proposal should not be supportive. PIs will receive all individual reviews and ratings and the panel summary (but not the panel rating). ### Pre-Award Communicatioon If an organization is being seriously considered for an award, the NSF Program Officer will reach out to complete due diligence for questions or concerns the panel had. At this point, it is highly likely to progress to an award if the questions are thoughtfully considered and "as long as you don't tie your own shoelaces together". ### Onboarding Organizations which haven't recently received funding from NSF will need to provide evidence of their ability to comply with 2 C.F.R. 200 in managing funding. The list of requested documents are provided in Section D [here](https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2020/nsf20032/nsf20032.pdf). In a nutshell, NSF requests: - General legal entity information - Small business certification or IRS exemption letter - Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws - Org chart showing segregation of duties. ("No single employee or person should have complete control of accounting transactions and oversight of the daily functions of the NSF project") - List of current or recent federal awards - [Financial Management System Questionnaire](https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/caar/forms/form358_2020.pdf): - [[single audit]] history - Audit history - Internal Controls and policies - Accounting software - [[time and effort]] - Indirect rate - Financial statements for two years (including corresponding tax forms if not audited) - [[single audit]], if applicable - Sample General Ledger and Project Ledger - Chart of Accounts - [[time and effort]] policy and sample report - Expense policy (allowable costs) - Participant support policy - Subaward monitoring policy and sample contract - Cost sharing policy, if applicable - Indirect rate agreement, de minimis letter, or rate proposal You must provide this within 10 days. ## Managing NSF Grants ### Receiving Funding The accounting office at an organization requests funding in ACM$ (Research.gov -> Manage Financials -> ACM$). If the grant is active, this is as simple as typing a number in a textbox, and then having another user approve the request. Funds are transferred to the account on file with SAM.gov. No documentation is required to be submitted as part of the process, although the documentation is required per 2 C.F.R. 200. ACM$ is usually closed in mid-September so NSF can close its books for the fiscal year, so funding needs to be requested early. ### Reporting The following reports are required: - Program Income (income earned as a result of NSF funding) must be reported every year, between Oct 1 and Nov 15. - Annual Project Report (APR) is due 90 days prior to the end of a budget period - see https://www.nsf.gov/mps/che/office_hour_slides/annual_reporting_made_easy_04152022_modified.pdf - Most programs also have an annual PI conference - The Final Project Report and Public Outcomes Report are due 120 days after the end of the program NSF also conducts random monitoring of expense allowability and cash on hand (i.e., the amount of any unreimbursed expenses). ### Requests and Notifications 2 C.F.R. 200 and NSF policies require awardees to either notify NSF, or receive advance approval, for certain events, which are listed in the "Prior Approval Matrix": - [Summary, if logged into research.gov](https://www.research.gov/research-web/content/aboutnr) - [2017 edition](https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/fedrtc/appa_march17.pdf) - [2024 edition](https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/gc1/priorapprovals/oct24.pdf) ("Waived" indicates that NSF has waived the requirement for prior approval, but typically still requires a notification. More information: [notifications](https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1/ch-7-award-administration#ch7A2) or [requests](https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1/ch-10-allowability-of-costs#ch10.A3).) Submissions for both types are made in Research.gov under "Awards & Reporting" -> "Notifications & Requests". The turnaround time for requests is at least several weeks, and will result in an updated award notice.