0058 SupportingStatement2014 doc

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION PROPOSAL and AWARD POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES GUIDE, OMB Clearance No. 3145-0058
Part A.

Justification

1.
Background. The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-507) sets
forth NSF's mission and purpose:
“To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity,
and welfare; to secure the national defense....”
The Act authorized and directed NSF to initiate and support:
•
•
•
•

basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process,
programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential,
science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all the various fields of
science and engineering,
programs that provide a source of information for policy formulation, and other activities
to promote these ends.

Over the years, NSF's statutory authority has been modified in a number of significant ways. In
1968, authority to support applied research was added to the Organic Act. In 1980, The Science
and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act gave NSF standing authority to support activities to
improve the participation of women and minorities in science and engineering. Another major
change occurred in 1986, when engineering was accorded equal status with science in the
Organic Act.
NSF has always dedicated itself to providing the leadership and vision needed to keep the words
and ideas embedded in its mission statement fresh and up-to-date. Even in today's rapidly
changing environment, NSF's core purpose resonates clearly in everything it does: promoting
achievement and progress in science and engineering and enhancing the potential for research
and education to contribute to the Nation. While NSF's vision of the future and the mechanisms
it uses to carry out its charges has evolved significantly over the last five decades, its ultimate
mission remains the same.
The Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) is comprised of documents
relating to the Foundation's proposal and award process. It has been designed for use by both
our customer community and NSF staff and consists of two parts:
•

Part I is comprised of NSF’s proposal preparation and submission guidelines -- the NSF
Grant Proposal Guide and the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. Both the Grant
Proposal Guide (GPG) and Grants.gov Application Guide provide guidance for the
preparation and submission of proposals to NSF, whether by the NSF Fastlane System or
Grants.gov. Some NSF programs have program solicitations that modify the general
provisions of these Guides, and, in such cases, the guidelines provided in the solicitation
must be followed.

•

Part II is comprised of the documents used to guide, manage, and monitor the award and
administration of grants and cooperative agreements made by the Foundation. Coverage
includes the NSF award process, from issuance and administration of an NSF award
through closeout. Guidance regarding other grant requirements or considerations that
either is not universally applicable or which do not follow the award cycle also is
provided.

A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (including a
listing of Significant Changes), effective December 26, 2014 is included as Exhibit 1 to this
Supporting Statement
2.

Use of Information.

The information collected is used to help the Foundation fulfill this responsibility by initiating
and supporting merit-selected research and education projects in all the scientific and
engineering disciplines. In FY 2015, NSF expects to receive more than 51,000 proposals
annually for new or renewal support for research in math/science/engineering education projects
and make approximately 11,400 awards. The Foundation exercises its authority primarily by
making merit-based grants and cooperative agreements and providing other forms of assistance
to individual researchers and groups, in partnership with over 2,800 colleges, universities and
other institutions – public and private, state, local and federal – throughout the United States.
The information collected on gender, race, ethnicity or disability is used in meeting NSF needs
for data to permit response to congressional and other queries into equity issues. Demographic
data allows NSF to gauge whether our programs and other opportunities in science and
technology are fairly reaching and benefiting everyone regardless of demographic category; to
ensure that those in under-represented groups have the same knowledge of and access to
programs and other research and educational opportunities; and to assess involvement of
international investigators in work supported by NSF.
The information collected on the proposal evaluation forms is used by the Foundation in
applying the following criteria when awarding or declining proposals submitted to the agency:
(1) intellectual merit; and (2) the broader impacts of the proposed activity.
The information collected on reviewer background questionnaires is used by managers to
maintain an automated database of reviewers for the many disciplines represented by the
proposals submitted to the Foundation. Information collected on gender, race, ethnicity and
disability status is used in meeting NSF needs for data to permit response to congressional and
other queries into equity issues. These data are also used in the design, implementation, and
monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the participation of various groups in science, engineering,
and education.

3.

Use of Automation.

The NSF FastLane System uses internet/web technology to facilitate the way NSF does business
with the research, education, and related communities. All FastLane functions are accessed by
using a web browser on the internet. FastLane modules are used for the following interactions
between NSF and the science and engineering research and education community:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

communicate the Foundation's strategic priorities to proposer and awardee communities;
proposal preparation & submission, including electronic signatures;
proposal reviews;
panel travel initiation;
panel electronic funds transfer information;
interactive panel system for panel meetings (including proposal ranking and submission
and approval of panel summaries);
proposal and award status inquiries (proposal status includes release of reviews to PIs and
co-PIs);
revised proposal budget preparation and submission;
supplemental funding request preparation and submission including electronic signatures;
access to award letters for use by PIs, Co-PIs, and Sponsored Project Offices;
post award administrative notifications and requests for NSF approval;
organizational management; and
review and/or revision of organizational information.

There are 103,622 organizations registered in FastLane. In FY 2013, 49,013 competitive
proposals were submitted electronically to NSF, either via FastLane or Grants.gov. Electronic
submission accounts for 99.9% of all proposals submitted to NSF.
In addition, 192,165 reviews were submitted via FastLane, in FY 2013. Our users represent a
diverse group of proposer and grantee organizations including major U.S universities, small
colleges, community colleges and non-profit organizations. The Proposal Evaluation module in
the NSF FastLane System contains the electronic format (attached and available electronically at:
https://www.fldemo.nsf.gov/jsp/homepage/prop_review.jsp) used in the evaluation of proposals
for the NSF. This FastLane module permits persons reviewing NSF proposals to submit ratings
and comments electronically using this application. The reviewer uses a special review PIN
(specific to that proposal) to access a template that can be used to "copy and paste" reviewer
comments and to record other required information.
Another NSF internet/web technology is Research.gov. Research.gov is NSF’s grants
management system that provides easy access to research-related information and grants
management services in one location. Research.gov is the modernization of FastLane, providing
the next generation of grants management capabilities for the research community.
In March 2013, NSF transferred all project reporting from FastLane to Research.gov. NSF
awardee institutions also must use Research.gov to access all online financial services required
for grants management, thus eliminating the quarterly Federal Financial Reports.

Relationship to Grants.gov Activities:
Grants.gov provides a common Website to simplify competitive discretionary grants
management and eliminate redundancies. There are 26 Federal grant-making agencies and over
1000 grant programs that award over $500 billion in grants each year. The grant community,
including state, local and tribal governments, academia and research institutions, and not-forprofits, need only visit one website, Grants.gov, to access the annual grant funds available across
the Federal government. Grants.gov provides a:
•
•
•
•
•

single source for finding grant opportunities;
standardized manner of locating and learning more about funding opportunities;
single, secure and reliable source for applying for Federal grants;
simplified grant application process with reduction of paperwork; and
unified interface for all agencies to announce their grant opportunities, and for all grant
applicants to find and apply for those opportunities.

Since the inception of Grants.gov, NSF has been an active partner in Federal-wide electronic
grant efforts. NSF continues to work with representatives from Federal research agencies under
the auspices of the Research and Related subcommittee, to maintain and update the SF 424
(R&R), a standardized application for use with research and research-related proposals. NSF
continues this leadership role by participating in various committees of the Council on Financial
Assistance Reform (COFAR).
Proposers are authorized to submit proposals to NSF via either Grants.gov or the NSF FastLane
system. Until such a time, however, as Grants.gov is able to accept all types of NSF proposal
formats through the Grants.gov portal, a separately cleared application format for use by NSF
applicants remains necessary.
4.

Efforts to Identify Duplication.

FastLane’s forms automatically pull in information about the proposing organization and
Principal Investigators that is already available in the NSF database thereby reducing the need to
re-enter previously provided data. NSF is expanding its efforts in this area by making use of the
FastLane system to fully integrate data, where possible and appropriate. NSF is able to take
advantage of FastLane’s database orientation to assure that the duplication of information is kept
to a minimum.
No duplication exists in the evaluation process since each proposal is evaluated on its own
merits. A centralized database is maintained containing the names, background data, and
reviewer history of all individuals evaluating proposals for NSF. It also contains the names of
potential reviewers. This database can be accessed, and new reviewers added, by any program
officer needing reviewers. Program officers cannot remove names from the database once they
have been asked to review a proposal. The names and related information about reviewers are
maintained in the system indefinitely to account for disclosures under the Privacy Act and to
fulfill NSF’s policy on releasing the names of all individuals who have reviewed proposals.

5.

Small Business Considerations.

Proposals from small businesses are solicited in accordance with the NSF Act of 1950, as
amended, the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, as amended and Public Law
112-81 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011), which has been authorized until September
30, 2017. Small businesses are expected to submit proposals in accordance with NSF guidelines
governing that particular program. These guidelines contain NSF standard proposal formats,
with the addition of specific information required by Federal regulations.
6.

Consequences of Less Frequent Collection.

Proposers may submit as many proposals as they deem appropriate. Since each proposal is
evaluated on its own merits by selected reviewers, proposers are required to furnish separate
proposals; each developed in accordance with standardized electronic formats.
Most continuation proposals do not require external review. The reviews submitted at the time
of the initial proposal submission, along with annual project performance reports are used as the
basis for making awards. The major part of the review process consists of the review of new
proposals submitted to the agency. No information is available for new proposals.
7.

Collection Inconsistent with Guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6.

Evaluators of NSF proposals are given a pledge of confidentiality that their names will not be
released in connection with their comments (see paragraph “10” below).
8.

Federal Register Notice.

Public Notice was published in the Federal Register, May 9, 2014, at 79 FR 26778.
A summary of the comments received in response to NSF’s request for public comment is as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•

54 responses were received from 18 different institutions/individuals;
One response was duplicated in both GPG and AAG and is therefore counted twice in the
54 total;
27 responses were in response to the Grant Proposal Guide;
18 responses were in response to the Award & Administration Guide; and
2 responses fall into an "other" category.

Exhibit 2 contains the full text of the comments received in response to the Federal Register
Notice and the associated NSF response.
Outside Consultation.
The process for announcing the availability of support and the process for receiving proposals
and making awards has been developed over the course of the Foundation’s history, with

assistance from many external sources. These sources include other Federal agencies as well as
from proposing organizations.
The Foundation also has participated in the Federal
Demonstration Partnership (FDP) since its inception. The Federal Demonstration Partnership is
a cooperative initiative among ten federal agencies and over 100 institutional recipients of
federal funds; its purpose is to reduce the administrative burdens associated with research grants
and contracts. The interaction between FDP’s 300 or so university and federal members takes
place in FDP’s 3 annual meetings and, more extensively, in the many collaborative working
groups and task forces that meet often by conference calls in order to develop specific work
products. The FDP is a unique forum for individuals from universities and nonprofits to work
collaboratively with federal agency officials to improve the national research enterprise. At its
regular meetings, FDP members hold spirited, frank discussions, identify problems, and develop
action plans for change. Then these new ways of doing business are tested in the real world
before putting them into effect. Since its inception, the FDP has served as an important
mechanism to solicit input and suggestions for improving the NSF proposal and award process.
Additionally, a large percentage of NSF program officers, who are responsible for making
funding recommendations, are from the research community. These individuals are well aware
of the burden associated with the submission of a competitive proposal to NSF and have
provided significant input on how the process can be streamlined and improved.
9.

Gifts or Remuneration. Not applicable.

10./11. Confidentiality/Sensitive Questions.
The Foundation is committed to monitor and identify any real or apparent inequities based on
gender, race, ethnicity, or handicap of the proposed principal investigator(s)/project director(s) or
the co-principal investigator(s)/co-project director(s). Although submission of these data is
voluntary, we strongly urge all proposers to provide it so that the quality of the database can be
improved. NSF retains these as an integral part of its Privacy Act Record System, NSF 50,
“Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records.” The information is not released
to proposal reviewers. Information from this format will be made available only to a person
conducting official business for NSF and will be treated as confidential to the extent permitted
by law.
Information concerning the reviewers/panelists is maintained in accordance with the requirement
of the Privacy Act of 1974 (NSF System of Records, NSF-51, “Reviewer/Proposal File”).
Information from this “System of Records” may be released to other government agencies
seeking reviewers.
Verbatim but anonymous copies of reviews are sent to principal investigators/project directors.
Subject to this NSF policy and applicable laws, including the Freedom of Information Act,
reviewers’ identities will be given maximum protection from disclosure.
While listings of panelists’ names are released, the names of individual reviewers, associated
with individual proposals, are not released.

The Foundation also collects gender, race, ethnicity and disability data from PIs/PDs identified
on the proposal. This demographic data allows NSF to gauge whether our programs and other
opportunities in science and technology are fairly reaching and benefiting everyone regardless of
demographic category; to ensure that those in under-represented groups have the same
knowledge of and access to programs and other research and educational opportunities; and to
assess involvement of international investigators in work supported by NSF.
12.

Burden on the Public.

It has been estimated that the public expends an average of approximately 120 burden hours for
each proposal submitted. Since the Foundation expects to receive approximately 51,600
proposals in FY 2015, an estimated 6,192,000 burden hours will be placed on the public.
The Foundation has based its reporting burden on the review of approximately 51,600 new
proposals expected during FY 2015. It has been estimated that anywhere from one hour to 20
hours may be required to review a proposal. We have estimated that approximately 5 hours are
required to review an average proposal. Each proposal receives an average of 3 reviews,
resulting in approximately 774,000 burden hours each year.
The information collected on the reviewer background questionnaire (NSF 428A) is used by
managers to maintain an automated database of reviewers for the many disciplines represented
by the proposals submitted to the Foundation. Information collected on gender, race, and
ethnicity is used in meeting NSF needs for data to permit response to Congressional and other
queries into equity issues. These data also are used in the design, implementation, and
monitoring of NSF efforts to increase the participation of various groups in science, engineering,
and education. The estimated burden for the Reviewer Background Information (NSF 428A) is
estimated at 5 minutes per respondent with up to 10,000 potential new reviewers for a total of
833 hours.
The aggregate number of burden hours is estimated to be 6,966,833. The actual burden on
respondents has not changed.
13.

Annualized Cost to Respondents.

There is no cost to respondents reviewing proposals electronically or by mail. Those respondents
who review proposals by panel are reimbursed for their expenses.
14.

Annualized Cost to the Federal Government.

The cost estimate for development of the new NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures
Guide, which we anticipate will be issued in Fall 2014, is $168,806. The main method of
accessing and printing this new Guide will continue to be via download from the NSF website.
The Foundation will print a limited number of copies at our in-house printing facility at a cost of
$4,160. The following supporting documentation is the basis used to develop the estimate of the
cost to gather information, develop, coordinate and review the Guide. Individuals and/or offices
instrumental in this process were polled to determine the staff estimates used. In FY 2013, NSF

expended approximately $21,478,199 for panel-related costs. This amount indicates travel costs
and reimbursements for expenses for panelists. This represents a decrease in costs from FY
2012. The decrease is due to the fact that there was a decrease in the overall number of panelists
in 2013, and an increase in the number of virtual panelists, from 7.85% to 24%.
Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management (BFA)
Policy Head
4 months x AD-5 = $52,832
Senior Policy Specialist
1.5 months x GS-14 = $15,275
Policy Specialist
2 months x GS-13 = $17,236
3 Policy Specialists 2 weeks x GS-14 (avg.) = $15,276
Policy Office IPA
2 weeks x GS-13 (avg.) = $4,310
Cost Analysis & Audit Resolution (CAAR) Branch Chief 2 weeks x GS-15 = $5,962
CAAR Team Lead 1 month x GS-15 = $11,924
Division of Financial Management (DFM) Branch Chief 2 weeks x GS-15 = $5,962
DFM Section Head 1 week x GS-14 = $2,546
Other BFA staff
2 weeks x GS-14 (avg.) = $5,092

Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
Assistant General Counsel
Assistant General Counsel
Legal Analyst

3 days x Executive Level 4 = $2,070
1 day x Executive Level 4 = $6,690
3 days x GS-14 (avg.) = $1,527

Division of Administrative Services (DAS)
DAS Staff

2 days x GS-12 (avg.) = $724

Division of Information Systems (DIS)
Division Director
1 day x Executive Level 3 = $694
Branch Chief
3 days x GS-15 (avg.) = $1,788
Computer Specialists 2 days x GS-14 (avg.) = $1,018
Other NSF Staff Offices
30 people at 1 day each x GS-15 (avg.) = $17,880
Total Salaries: $168,806
Estimated printing costs: 13 per page x 160 page document = $20.80
$20.80 x 200 copies = $4,160

15.

Changes in Burden.

Since the burden hours reported are based on the number of proposals expected in any given
year, this estimate is considered to be uncontrollable. The burden is expected to increase
proportionately for both the proposal and review processes as the receipt of proposals increases.
16.

Publication of Collection. Not applicable.

17.

OMB Expiration Date. Not applicable.

18.

Exceptions for Certifications. Not applicable.

B.

STATISTICAL METHODS. Not applicable.

DATA
COLLECTION
INSTRUCTIONS

INSTRUMENT,

INCLUDING

CORRESPONDING

See Exhibit 1
ATTACHMENTS:
National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-507)
NSF Form 1
NSF Form 428 A
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Revised version of the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide,
Effective December 26, 2014
Exhibit 2: Public Comments Received along with associated NSF response.