Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)

Program Solicitation
NSF 16-549

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 15-541

National Science Foundation

Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering
Division of Computer and Network Systems
Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
Division of Information & Intelligent Systems
Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure

Directorate for Engineering
Division of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems
Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation
Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems

Department of Homeland Security, Science & Technology Directorate

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research
National Cancer Institute

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Submission Window Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

May 24, 2016 - June 07, 2016

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)

Synopsis of Program:

Cyber-physical systems (CPS) are engineered systems that are built from, and depend upon, the seamless integration of computational algorithms and physical components. Advances in CPS will enable capability, adaptability, scalability, resiliency, safety, security, and usability that will far exceed the simple embedded systems of today. CPS technology will transform the way people interact with engineered systems - just as the Internet has transformed the way people interact with information. New smart CPS will drive innovation and competition in sectors such as agriculture, energy, transportation, building design and automation, healthcare, and manufacturing.

The December 2010 report of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) titled Designing a Digital Future: Federally Funded Research and Development in Networking and Information Technology calls for continued investment in CPS research because of its scientific and technological importance as well as its potential impact on grand challenges in a number of sectors critical to U.S. security and competitiveness such as the ones noted above. These challenges and technology gaps are further described in a CPS Vision Statement published in 2012 by the federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) CPS Senior Steering Group.

Tremendous progress has been made in advancing CPS technology over the last five-plus years. We have explored foundational technologies that have spanned an ever-growing set of application domains, enabling breakthrough achievements in many of these fields. At the same time, the demand for innovation in these domains continues to grow, and is driving the need to accelerate fundamental research to keep pace.

Despite significant inroads into CPS technology in recent years, we do not yet have a mature science to support systems engineering of high-confidence CPS, and the consequences are profound. Traditional analysis tools are unable to cope with the full complexity of CPS or adequately predict system behavior. For example, as the Internet of Things (IoT) scales to billions of connected devices - with the capacity to sense, control, and otherwise interact with the human and physical world - the requirements for dependability, security, safety, and privacy grow immensely. One barrier to progress is the lack of appropriate science and technology to conceptualize and design for the deep interdependencies among engineered systems and the natural world. The challenges and opportunities for CPS are thus significant and far-reaching. New relationships between the cyber and physical components require new architectural models that redefine form and function. They integrate the continuous and discrete, compounded by the uncertainty of open environments. Traditional real-time performance guarantees are insufficient for CPS when systems are large and spatially, temporally, or hierarchically distributed in configurations that may rapidly change. With the greater autonomy and cooperation possible with CPS, greater assurances of safety, security, scalability, and reliability are demanded, placing a high premium on open interfaces, modularity, interoperability, and verification.

The goal of the CPS program is to develop the core system science needed to engineer complex cyber-physical systems that people can use or interact with and depend upon. Some of these may require high-confidence or provable behaviors. The program aims to foster a research community committed to advancing research and education in CPS and to transitioning CPS science and technology into engineering practice. By abstracting from the particulars of specific systems and application domains, the CPS program seeks to reveal cross-cutting fundamental scientific and engineering principles that underpin the integration of cyber and physical elements across all application sectors. To expedite and accelerate the realization of cyber-physical systems in a wide range of applications, the CPS program also supports the development of methods, tools, and hardware and software components based upon these cross-cutting principles, along with validation of the principles via prototypes and testbeds. We have also seen a convergence of CPS technologies and research thrusts that underpin Smart & Connected Communities (S&CC) and the Internet of Things (IoT). These domains offer new and exciting challenges for foundational research and provide opportunities for maturation at multiple time horizons.

In 2016, NSF is working closely with multiple agencies of the federal government, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T); the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and through FHWA, the U.S. DOT Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO); the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD); several National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes and centers [including the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), National Cancer Institute (NCI), and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)]; and the U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA, hereafter referred to as NIFA). Key goals are to identify basic CPS research directions that are common across multiple application domains, along with opportunities for accelerated transition to practice.

Three classes of research and education projects - differing in scope and goals - will be considered through this solicitation:

• Breakthrough projects must offer a significant advance in fundamental CPS science, engineering and/or technology that has the potential to change the field. This category focuses on new approaches to bridge computing, communication, and control. Funding for Breakthrough projects may be requested for a total of up to $500,000 for a period of up to 3 years.

• Synergy projects must demonstrate innovation at the intersection of multiple disciplines, to accomplish a clear goal that requires an integrated perspective spanning the disciplines. Funding for Synergy projects may be requested for a total of $500,001 to $1,000,000 for a period of 3 to 4 years.

• Frontier projects must address clearly identified critical CPS challenges that cannot be achieved by a set of smaller projects. Funding may be requested for a total of $1,000,001 to $7,000,000 for a period of 4 to 5 years.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• David Corman, Program Director, CISE/CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8754, email: dcorman@nsf.gov
• Radhakisan Baheti, Program Director, ENG/ECCS, 525, telephone: (703) 292-8339, email: rbaheti@nsf.gov
• Sankar Basu, Program Director, CISE/CCF, telephone: (703) 292-7843, email: sabasu@nsf.gov
• Bruce Hamilton, Program Director, ENG/CBET, 565, telephone: (703) 292-7066, email: bhamilto@nsf.gov
• Bruce Kramer, Program Director, ENG/CMMI, 545, telephone: (703) 292-5348, email: bkramer@nsf.gov
• Anita Nikolich, Program Director, CISE/ACI, telephone: (703) 292-4551, email: anikolic@nsf.gov
• Wendy Nilsen, Program Director, CISE/IIS, telephone: (703) 292-2568, email: wnilsen@nsf.gov
• Gurdip Singh, Program Director, CISE/CNS, telephone: (703) 292-8061, email: gsingh@nsf.gov
• Sylvia Spengler, Program Director, CISE/IIS, 1125, telephone: (703) 292-8930, email: sspengle@nsf.gov
• Ralph Wachter, Program Director, CISE/CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: rwachter@nsf.gov
• Daniel Massey, Program Director, DHS S&T, telephone: (202) 254-0908, email: daniel.massey@hq.dhs.gov
• David Kuehn, Program Manager, DOT/FHWA, telephone: (202) 493-3414, email: david.kuehn@dot.gov
• Kevin Dopart, Program Director, DOT/ITS JPO, telephone: (202) 366-8034, email: kevin.dopart@dot.gov
• Yuri Gawdiak, Manager of Strategic Analysis, NASA ARMD, telephone: (202) 358-1853, email: yuri.o.gawdiak@nasa.gov
• Vinay Pai, Program Director, NIH/NIBIB, telephone: (301) 451-4781, email: vinay.pai@nih.gov
• Danilo Tagle, Associate Director for Special Initiatives, NIH/NCATS, telephone: (301) 594-8064, email: danilo.tagle@nih.gov
• Bradford Hesse, Program Director, NIH/NCI, telephone: (301) 594-9904, email: bradford.hesse@nih.gov
• Daniel Schmoldt, National Program Leader, USDA-NIFA, telephone: (202) 720-4807, email: dschmoldt@nifa.usda.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

• 10.310 -- Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
• 20.200 -- Highway Research and Development Program
• 43.001 -- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Science)
• 47.041 -- Engineering
• 47.070 -- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 93.286 -- National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
• 93.350 -- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
• 93.396 -- National Cancer Institute
• 97.065 -- Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Cooperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards: 20 to 32

Approximately 10 Breakthrough projects, 20 Synergy projects, and 2 Frontier projects are anticipated, subject to receipt of sufficient meritorious proposals.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $34,000,000

In FY 16, subject to receipt of sufficient meritorious proposals.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2

An individual can participate as PI, co-PI, or Senior Personnel, or Consultant on no more than two proposals submitted in response to this solicitation.

These eligibility constraints will be strictly enforced in order to treat everyone fairly and consistently. In the event that an individual exceeds the two-proposal limit for this solicitation, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on earliest date and time of proposal submission (i.e., the first two proposals received will be accepted and the remainder will be returned without review). No exceptions will be made.

Additionally, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation may not duplicate or be substantially similar to other proposals concurrently under consideration by other NSF, DHS, DOT, NASA, NIH, or NIFA programs. Duplicate or substantially similar proposals will be returned without review, including those substantially similar to previously declined proposals without revisions to address concerns raised by reviewers.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not required
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
• Full Proposals:
  • Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
  • Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements:

  Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

  For awards made by NSF, Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) guidelines apply. [Applications selected for funding by DHS and/or DOT will be awarded by NSF using funds transferred from DHS and/or DOT, respectively, and so they will follow NSF's Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) guidelines.]

  For awards made by NASA, contact the cognizant NASA Program Officer.

  For awards made by NIH, indirect costs on foreign subawards/subcontracts will be limited to eight (8) percent.

  For awards made by NIFA: Section 713 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113) limits indirect costs to 30 percent of the total Federal funds provided (or 42.857 percent of total direct costs) under each award. Therefore, when preparing budgets, you should limit your request for the recovery of indirect costs to the lesser of your institution's official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 30 percent of total Federal funds awarded. See Part V section 7.9 of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide for further indirect cost information. See webpage at http://nifa.usda.gov/indirect-costs for options.

• Other Budgetary Limitations:

  Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

• Submission Window Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

  May 24, 2016 - June 07, 2016

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary of Program Requirements

1. Introduction
   
2. Program Description
   
3. Award Information
   
4. Eligibility Information
   
5. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
   1. Proposal Preparation Instructions
   2. Budgetary Information
   3. Due Dates
   4. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
      
6. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
   1. Merit Review Principles and Criteria
   2. Review and Selection Process
      
7. Award Administration Information
   1. Notification of the Award
   2. Award Conditions
   3. Reporting Requirements
      
8. Agency Contacts
   
9. Other Information

1. Appendix

I. INTRODUCTION

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

III. AWARD INFORMATION

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

• Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2

An individual can participate as PI, co-PI, or Senior Personnel, or Consultant on no more than two proposals submitted in response to this solicitation.

These eligibility constraints will be strictly enforced in order to treat everyone fairly and consistently. In the event that an individual exceeds the two-proposal limit for this solicitation, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on earliest date and time of proposal submission (i.e., the first two proposals received will be accepted and the remainder will be returned without review). No exceptions will be made.

Additionally, proposals submitted in response to this solicitation may not duplicate or be substantially similar to other proposals concurrently under consideration by other NSF, DHS, DOT, NASA, NIH, or NIFA programs. Duplicate or substantially similar proposals will be returned without review, including those substantially similar to previously declined proposals without revisions to address concerns raised by reviewers.

Additional Eligibility Info:

The CPS program encourages applications from groups eligible to compete as Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI; see NSF 14-579) or Grants Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI; see NSF 12-513) under the CPS program deadlines.

In addition, the organization limit above does not preclude eligible organizations from submitting proposals that involve participation of for-profit corporations as subcontractors, unfunded collaborators, contributors, or GOALI partners.

For proposals that specifically target NIFA for sponsorship by designating NIFA as the requested funding agency in the Project Summary in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Proposal Preparation Instructions, eligible applicants include: (1) State agricultural experiment stations; (2) colleges and universities (including junior colleges offering associate degrees or higher); (3) university research foundations; (4) other research institutions and organizations; (5) Federal agencies, (6) national laboratories; (7) private organizations or corporations; (8) individuals who are U.S. citizens, nationals, or permanent residents; and (9) any group consisting of 2 or more entities identified in (1) through (8). Eligible institutions do not include foreign and international organizations.

The eligibility criteria for all other proposals, including those targeting a specific agency other than NIFA for sponsorship, are as listed under "Who May Submit Proposals" above. Proposals that do not meet these criteria, and do not explicitly designate NIFA as the requested funding agency in the Project Summary, will be returned without review.

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.

• Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.5 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

See Chapter II.C.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 instructions.

The following information supplements the guidelines and requirements in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide:

Proposal Titles: Proposal titles must indicate the CPS program, followed by a colon, then the project class, followed by a colon, then the title of the project. For example, a CPS Frontier project proposal title would be CPS: Frontier: Title. Titles of collaborative proposals should be prepared as above, but should also include "Collaborative Research" followed by a colon before the title of the project. For example, the title of each proposal for a collaborative set of proposals for a Synergy project would be CPS: Synergy: Collaborative Research: Title. Proposals that include a Transition to Practice (TTP) option should include "TTP Option" followed by a colon immediately after identifying as CPS. For example, a CPS Frontier project with the TTP option should have a title of the form CPS: TTP Option: Frontier: Title. Proposals from PIs in institutions that have RUI (Research in Undergraduate Institutions) eligibility should also include "RUI" followed by a colon before the project title, for example, CPS: Synergy: RUI: Title. Similarly, GOALI (Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry) proposals should include "GOALI" followed by a colon as the last identifier before the project title.

Project Summary: At the top of the Overview text box, enter the title of the CPS project, the name of the lead PI, and the name of the lead institution. Provide an overview description of the CPS project. This description should explicitly identify how the CPS research target area(s) described in section II.A above (i.e., Science of Cyber-Physical Systems; Technology for Cyber-Physical Systems; and/or Engineering of Cyber-Physical Systems) are addressed in the proposed project. Proposals that seek to address a next-generation CPS application in conjunction with research in one or more of the three target areas should also specify the target application. At the end, include a prioritized list of keywords and CPS research target area(s) that characterize the project. In separate statements, provide a summary of the intellectual merit of the proposed project in the "intellectual merit" box, and broader impacts in the "broader impacts" box. Those proposals that are targeting a specific agency sponsorship should indicate so in the last line of the last box, e.g., "Requested funding agency:" followed by that agency's abbreviated name, i.e., "NSF," "DHS," "NASA" "DOT," "NIH," or "NIFA," but only if the proposers have previously communicated with a Program Officer from that agency and received permission or instruction to do so. Those not so designated will be considered for funding by all of the joint sponsoring agencies.

Project Description: Describe the research and education activities to be undertaken in up to 15 pages for Breakthrough and Synergy proposals, and up to 20 pages for Frontier proposals.

Proposals that address a next-generation CPS application in conjunction with research in one or more of the three target areas should clearly specify the target application in the Project Description.

All proposals are expected to:

• Describe how the project goals and research and education outcomes will contribute to the realization of the CPS program goal and vision;
• Clearly explain the research component(s) of the project and their specific contribution to CPS science and technology;
• Explain how research outcomes can be generalized to other areas of application;
• Explain how the project research fits the Program Description for the class of proposal (Breakthrough, Synergy, or Frontier);
• Present a plan to integrate research outcomes into education and more broadly advance education in CPS;
• Describe the roles, responsibilities, and expertise of the team members, how they cover the set of skills needed to realize the project goals, and how their interactions will contribute to integration across core CPS disciplinary areas;
• Include a plan for validation of the research by experimentation and prototyping;
• Provide plans for disseminating the research and education outcomes in a manner that enables the CPS research community and helps scientists and engineers to use the results in ways that go beyond traditional academic publications;
• Provide a compelling rationale for the multi-institution structure of the project and an explanation of how effective collaboration will be assured, if the proposal involves a collaboration spanning multiple institutions; and
• Present a research plan including a Gantt chart with major tasks, milestones, and interdependencies.

In addition, for projects of more than three years, the validation plan must include experimentation on an actual cyber-physical system.

Single Copy Document: In the Single Copy Documents section, upload the following:

A list of Collaborators (Note: In separately submitted collaborative proposals, only the lead institution should provide this information):

Provide current, accurate information for all active or recent collaborators of personnel and institutions involved in the project. NSF staff will use this information in the merit review process to manage conflicts of interest. This list - distinct from (1) below - must include all active or recent Collaborators of all personnel involved with the proposed project. Collaborators include any individual with whom any member of the project team - including PIs, Co-PIs, Senior Personnel, paid/unpaid Consultants or Collaborators, Subawardees, Postdocs, and project-level advisory committee members - has collaborated on a project, book, article, report, or paper within the preceding 48 months; or co-edited a journal, compendium, or conference proceedings within the preceding 24 months. This list should be numbered and include (in this order) Full name and Organization(s), with each item separated by a semi-colon. Each person listed should start a new numbered line.

1. Mary Smith; XYZ University
2. John Jones; University of PQR
3. Jane Brown; XYZ University
4. Bob Adams; ABC Inc.
5. Mary White; Welldone Institution
6. Tim Green; ZZZ University

Supplementary Documents: In the Supplementary Documents section, upload the following:

(1) A list of Project Personnel and Partner Institutions (Note: In separately submitted collaborative proposals, only the lead institution should provide this information):

Provide current, accurate information for all personnel and institutions involved in the project. NSF staff will use this information in the merit review process to manage conflicts of interest. The list must include all PIs, Co-PIs, Senior Personnel, paid/unpaid Consultants or Collaborators, Subawardees, Postdocs, project-level advisory committee members, and writers of letters of support. If the project includes a Transition to Practice (TTP) option, this list must include personnel and institutions involved in the option. This list should be numbered and include (in this order) Full name, Organization(s), and Role in the project, with each item separated by a semi-colon. Each person listed should start a new numbered line. For example:

1. Mary Smith; XYZ University; PI
2. John Jones; University of PQR; Senior Personnel
3. Jane Brown; XYZ University; Postdoc
4. Bob Adams; ABC Inc.; Paid Consultant
5. Mary White; Welldone Institution; Unpaid Collaborator
6. Tim Green; ZZZ University; Subawardee

(2) Justification for Breakthrough Proposals:

Proposals for Breakthrough projects are required to have a statement of up to one page that persuasively reasons why the research to be undertaken, if successful, would significantly change the field of cyber-physical systems. Specifically, the Breakthrough statement should justify why the research itself represents a breakthrough - not simply re-state the challenge problem. The emphasis should be on the broader scientific and societal impacts of the Breakthrough. How will your research and application domain be transformed? How might advances extend to other CPS research and application domains? Strive to quantify the magnitude of potential impacts where possible. Breakthrough proposals that do not include this justification, or justifications exceeding one page in length, will be returned without review.

(3) Collaboration Plans for Breakthrough, Synergy, and Frontier Proposals:

Since the success of collaborative research efforts are known to depend on thoughtful coordination mechanisms that regularly bring together the various participants of the project, all Breakthrough, Synergy projects that include more than one investigator, and all Frontier proposals must include a Collaboration Plan of up to 2 pages. The length and degree of detail provided in the Collaboration Plan should be commensurate with the complexity of the proposed project. Where appropriate, the Collaboration Plan might include: 1) the specific roles of the project participants in all organizations involved; 2) information on how the project will be managed across all the investigators, institutions, and/or disciplines; 3) identification of the specific coordination mechanisms that will enable cross-investigator, cross-institution, and/or cross-discipline scientific integration (e.g., yearly workshops, graduate student exchange, project meetings at conferences, use of video-conferences, software repositories, etc.), and 4) specific references to the budget line items that support collaboration and coordination mechanisms. Note: the Collaboration Plan should not be used to expand discussions on your research activities. All Research activities should reside within the Project Description section.

In the case of Frontier projects, the collaboration plan should also: 1) identify a single individual who will be responsible for executing the collaboration plan and the amount of the budget that will be allocated for project administration; and 2) include a kick-off meeting of all participants in coordination with NSF.

If a Frontier proposal, or a Breakthrough, or Synergy project with more than one investigator, does not include a Collaboration Plan of up to 2 pages, that proposal will be returned without review.

(4) Education and Outreach Plan for Frontier Proposals

All Frontier projects must include an Education and Outreach Plan of up to three pages. This plan, separate from the Project Description, should describe educational approaches that overcome traditional curricula and better prepare students for careers in cyber-physical systems practice and research. The plan should also address the goals of achieving impact on educational practices beyond the participating institutions, and expanding the CPS community. The CPS program is interested in ideas that address the under-representation of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in CPS science, technology, and engineering, and that stimulate interest in cyber-physical systems at the K-12 level and in the public at large.

If a Frontier proposal does not include an Education and Outreach Plan of up to 3 pages, that proposal will be returned without review.

(5) Transition to Practice (TTP) Option Proposals:

Projects may include a Transition to Practice (TTP) option. Proposals submitted with a TTP option must include a supplemental document of up to five pages in order for the option to be considered for funding. This document should describe how successful proposed research results are to be further developed, matured, and experimentally deployed in organizations, networks and end systems. It should also include an option budget that indicates what additional funds would be needed to carry out the TTP option. This budget for the TTP option may be no larger than $167,000 for Breakthrough projects, no larger than $400,000 for Synergy projects, and no larger than $1,000,000 for Frontier projects.

Note that the budget for the TTP option must be specified separately within the five-page supplement. In addition, it must also be incorporated into the budget sheets for the overall proposal.

(6) Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan (if applicable):

Each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. In no more than one page, the mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral researchers supported by the project, irrespective of whether they reside at the submitting organization, any subawardee organization, or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted collaborative project. Please be advised that if required, FastLane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing a Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan. See GPG Chapter II.C.2.j of the Grant Proposal Guide for further information about the implementation of this requirement. Proposals that include Postdoctoral Mentoring Plans exceeding one page in length will be returned without review.

(7) Data Management Plan (required):

Proposals must include a supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled "Data Management Plan." This supplementary document should describe how the proposal will conform to NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of research results.

See GPG Chapter II.C.2.j for full policy implementation.

For additional information see http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp.

For specific guidance for proposals submitted to the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) see http://www.nsf.gov/cise/cise_dmp.jsp.

In the case of CPS, all projects are strongly encouraged to share results, including software and other artifacts, with the CPS research community through the CPS Virtual Organization (CPS-VO). Plans for sharing should be described in the Data Management Plan. Frontier project proposals are required to include a plan for such sharing, along with transition to practice, involving potential end users and stakeholders.

Proposals that include Data Management Plans exceeding two pages in length will be returned without review.

(8) Human Subjects Protection:

Proposals involving human subjects should include a supplementary document of no more than two pages in length summarizing potential risks to human subjects; plans for recruitment and informed consent; inclusion of women, minorities, and children; and planned procedures to protect against or minimize potential risks.

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the supplementary document must address the following five issues: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the supplementary document must address: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials.

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children must be addressed for all proposals that involve human subjects. When the proposed project involves clinical research, the supplementary document must address the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders ( http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/women_min.htm), as well as the inclusion of children ( http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm). Proposals including research involving human subjects must provide a Planned Enrollment Report (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/PlannedEnrollmentReport.docx). The Planned Enrollment Report, if included, does not count against the two-page limitation for this supplementary document.

For more information please go to this website: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/.

(9) Vertebrate Animals:

Proposals involving vertebrate animals should include a supplementary document of no more than two pages in length. The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

For awards made by NSF, Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) guidelines apply. [Applications selected for funding by DHS and/or DOT will be awarded by NSF using funds transferred from DHS and/or DOT, respectively, and so they will follow NSF's Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) guidelines.]

For awards made by NASA, contact the cognizant NASA Program Officer.

For awards made by NIH, indirect costs on foreign subawards/subcontracts will be limited to eight (8) percent.

For awards made by NIFA: Section 713 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113) limits indirect costs to 30 percent of the total Federal funds provided (or 42.857 percent of total direct costs) under each award. Therefore, when preparing budgets, you should limit your request for the recovery of indirect costs to the lesser of your institution's official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 30 percent of total Federal funds awarded. See Part V section 7.9 of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide for further indirect cost information. See webpage at http://nifa.usda.gov/indirect-costs for options.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Cost Sharing Requirements for awards made by NIFA:

In accordance with 7 USC 450i(b)(9), if a funded applied Research or Integrated Project with an applied research component, is commodity-specific and not of national scope, the grant recipient is required to match the USDA funds awarded on a dollar-for-dollar basis from non-Federal sources with cash and/or in-kind contributions.

For Equipment Grants: The amount of Federal funds provided may not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the equipment acquired using funds from the grant, or $50,000, whichever is less. Grantees are required to match 100 percent of Federal funds awarded from non-Federal sources. The Secretary of Agriculture may waive all or part of the matching requirement if all three of the following criteria are met: (1) applicants must be a college, university, or research foundation maintained by a college or university that ranks in the lowest one third of such colleges, universities, and research foundations on the basis of Federal research funds received (see Table 2 following Part VIII for eligibility); (2) if the equipment to be acquired using funds from the grant costs not more than $25,000; and (3) has multiple uses within a single research project or is usable in more than one research project. If the institution believes it is eligible for the waiver for matching funds, the budget justification must include a letter signed by the institution's AR stating this information. NIFA will consider this justification when ascertaining final matching requirements or in determining if required matching can be waived. NIFA retains the right to make final determinations regarding matching requirements.

Budget Preparation Instructions:

Budgets for all projects must include funding for one or more designated CPS project representatives (PI/co-PI/senior researcher or NSF-approved replacement) to attend each CPS PI meeting during the proposed lifetime of the award (per Section II.E above). For budget preparation purposes, PIs should assume these meetings will be held in the fall of each year in the Washington, DC, area.

C. Due Dates

• Submission Window Date(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

  May 24, 2016 - June 07, 2016

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.

Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in 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. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. ( GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i. contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal.) Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
   1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
   2. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

All Breakthrough proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the one-page supplementary document clearly articulating reasons why the research to be undertaken, if successful, would significantly change the field of cyber-physical systems.

All Breakthrough and Synergy project proposals with more than one investigator or institution, and all Frontier project proposals will be evaluated on the strength of their Collaboration Plans.

All Frontier project proposals will also be evaluated on the strength of their Education and Outreach Plans.

Proposals submitted with a Transition to Practice (TTP) option will be evaluated with careful attention to the following:

• The expected impact on the deployed environment described in the supplemental document;
• The extent to which the value of the proposed CPS research and development is described in the context of a needed capability and potential impact;
• The feasibility, utility, and interoperability of the capability in its proposed operational role;
• An option plan that addresses in its goals and milestones the demonstration and evaluation of a working system in the target environment;
• Tangible metrics described to evaluate the success of the capabilities developed, and the steps necessary to take the system from prototype status to production use; and
• The appropriateness of the budget for the option plan. The supplemental document should explain how the additional budget will be used to execute the option plan.

Additional NIH Review Criteria:

The mission of the NIH is to support science in pursuit of knowledge about the biology and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. While many of the NIH and NSF review criteria are based on the same standards of scientific evaluation, some scoring mechanisms and programmatic emphases vary. For example, all proposals under consideration by NIH will be scored by their respective review panels using the NIH 1-9 scoring system, which does not include consideration of broader impacts. Additionally, proposers should pay particular attention to NIH clinical evaluation standards represented by criteria for human protections, inclusion of women, minorities, and children in the study population, and animal subjects' protections, as well as biohazards. In their evaluations of scientific merit, reviewers will be asked to consider the following criteria that are used by NIH:

Overall Impact. Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following five core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed). Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Investigator(s). Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

Where applicable, the following items will also be considered:

Protections for Human Subjects. For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children. When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of children to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.

Vertebrate Animals. The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.

Biohazards. Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

Budget and Period of Support. Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

For those proposals that are selected for funding consideration by participating NIH Institutes, the NIH will ask the applicant(s) to resubmit the proposal in an NIH-approved format directly to the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) at the NIH. Each of these NIH applications will be accompanied by a cover letter that associates the application with CPS. Applicants will not be allowed to increase the proposed budget or change the scientific content of the application in the resubmission to the NIH. These NIH applications, along with the summary statements generated based on the review, will be entered into the NIH IMPAC-II system.

Additional NIFA Review Criteria:

Adequacy of Facilities. Reviewers will assess the adequacy of the necessary research infrastructure capacity for the performing organization to conduct the proposed work.

Relevance. The extent to which the proposed research meets USDA-NIFA strategic goals and advances the sciences related to agriculture and food systems will be evaluated.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, or Reverse Site Review.

NIFA Process: NIFA will make final funding decisions based on the results of the peer review process. Applications selected for funding by NIFA will be forwarded to the NIFA Awards Management Division for award processing in accordance with the NIFA procedures.

Review and Selection Process:

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by the process below.

A uniform review process will be conducted by NSF for all proposals received responding to this program solicitation. Multiple review panels of experts in the field and additional ad hoc reviewers as needed will be assembled. The number and topical clustering of panels will be determined according to the number and topical areas of the proposals received. Staff members from the other supporting agencies will be assigned to work cooperatively with NSF staff on each panel, as appropriate to the category of funding requested. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. The Program Officer(s) assigned to manage a given proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation. Upon conclusion of the review process, meritorious proposals may be recommended for funding by one of the participating agencies, the choice to be determined at the option of the agencies, not the proposer. Subsequent grant administration procedures will be in accordance with the individual policies of the awarding agency.

NSF Process: Those proposals selected for funding by NSF will be handled in accordance with standard NSF procedures. This process begins with NSF drafting and releasing the joint-agency solicitation, which includes program requirements.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

DHS and DOT Process: Applications selected for funding by DHS and/or DOT will be awarded by NSF using funds transferred from DHS and/or DOT, respectively.

NASA Process: Applications selected for funding by NASA will be transferred to NASA for their procurement process.

NIH Process: For those proposals that are selected for potential funding by participating NIH Institutes, the PI will be required to resubmit the proposal in an NIH-approved format directly to the Center for Scientific Review ( http://www.csr.nih.gov/) of the NIH. PIs invited to resubmit to NIH will receive further information on resubmission procedures from NIH. An applicant will not be allowed to increase the proposed budget or change the scientific content of the proposal in the resubmission to the NIH as an NIH application. Indirect costs on any foreign subawards/subcontracts will be limited to eight (8) percent. These NIH applications will be entered into the NIH IMPAC II system. The results of the review will be presented to the involved Institutes' National Advisory Councils for the second level of review. Subsequent to the Council reviews, NIH Institutes will make their funding determinations and selected awards will be made. Subsequent grant administration procedures for NIH awardees, including those related to New and Early Stage Investigators ( http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/Pages/aag.aspx), will be in accordance with the policies of NIH. Applications selected for NIH funding will use the NIH funding mechanisms.

Proposals that are funded by NIH are expected to be renewed as competing continuing applications. PIs should contact their NIH Program Officer for additional information. For information purposes, NIH PIs may wish to consult the NIAID web site, "All about Grants," which provides excellent generic information about all aspects of NIH grantsmanship, including competitive renewals ( http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/Pages/aag.aspx).

VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

Special Award Conditions:

For all awards, one or more designated CPS project representatives (PI/co-PI/senior researcher or NSF-approved replacement) must attend annual CPS PI meetings and participate in collaborative activities with the CPS-VO throughout the duration of the grant.

Attribution of support in publications must acknowledge the joint program, as well as the funding organization and award number, by including the phrase, "as part of the NSF/DHS/DOT/NASA/NIH/USDA-NIFA Cyber-Physical Systems Program."

DHS and DOT Award Administration and Conditions:

Applications selected for funding by DHS and/or DOT will be awarded by NSF using funds transferred from DHS and/or DOT, and will thus follow NSF's award conditions described above.

NASA Award Conditions:

Contact the cognizant NASA Program Officer for additional information.

NIH Award Conditions:

Contact the cognizant NIH organization Program Officer for additional information.

NIFA Award Administration and Conditions:

Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the NIFA awarding official shall make grants to those responsible, eligible applicants whose applications are judged most meritorious under the procedures set forth in this solicitation. The date specified by the NIFA awarding official as the effective date of the grant shall be no later than September 30 of the federal fiscal year in which the project is approved for support and funds are appropriated for such purpose, unless otherwise permitted by law. The project need not be initiated on the grant effective date, but as soon thereafter as practical so that project goals may be attained within the funded project period. All funds granted by NIFA under this solicitation may be used only for the purpose for which they are granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, regulations, terms and conditions of the award, applicable federal cost principles, NIFA assistance regulations, and NIFA General Awards Administration Provisions at 7 CFR part 3430, subparts A through E and G.

The award document will provide pertinent instructions and information including, at a minimum:

1. Legal name and address of performing organization or institution to which the director has issued an award under the terms of this request for applications;
2. Title of project;
3. Name(s) and institution(s) of PDs chosen to direct and control approved activities;
4. Identifying award number and the Federal Agency Identification Number assigned by NIFA;
5. Project period, specifying the amount of time NIFA intends to support the project without requiring recompetition for funds;
6. Total amount of financial assistance approved for the award;
7. Legal authority(ies) under which the award is issued;
8. Appropriate Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number;
9. Applicable award terms and conditions (see http://www.nifa.usda.gov/business/awards/awardterms.html to view NIFA award terms and conditions);
10. Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds to accomplish the stated purpose of the award; and
11. Other information or provisions deemed necessary by NIFA to carry out its respective awarding activities or to accomplish the purpose of a particular award.

Changes in Project Plans:

1. The permissible changes by the grantee, PD(s), or other key project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other similar aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee or the PD(s) is (are) uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination. The ADO is the signatory of the award document, not the program contact.
2. Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
3. Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes.
4. Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to electing such transfers, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
5. Changes in Project Period: The project period may be extended by NIFA without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the ADO determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project, but in no case shall the total project period exceed five years. Any extension of time shall be conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant.
6. Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles, Departmental regulations, or grant award.http://nifa.usda.gov/responsible-and-ethical-conduct-research for more information.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). 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 public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

DHS and DOT:

Applications selected for funding by DHS, and/or DOT will be awarded by NSF using funds transferred from DHS, and/or DOT, respectively, and will thus follow NSF's award conditions described above.

NASA:

Contact the cognizant NASA Program Officer for additional information.

NIH:

Contact the cognizant NIH organization Program Officer for additional information.

NIFA:

Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements:

The output and reporting requirements are included in the award terms and conditions (see http://www.nifa.usda.gov/business/awards/awardterms.html for information about NIFA award terms). If there are any program or award-specific award terms, those, if any, will be identified in the award.

Other NIFA Requirements:

Several federal statutes and regulations apply to grant applications considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program. These may include, but are not limited to, the ones listed on the NIFA webpage: http://nifa.usda.gov/federal-regulations.

If selected for funding, the applicants will be required to file the mandatory Felony Convictions or Tax Delinquent Status found in Part V., Section 4.12 of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide (Field 12 on the Form) for instructions regarding mandatory Felony Convictions or Tax Delinquent Status.

In addition, specific management information relating to an applicant shall be submitted on a one-time basis, with updates on an as-needed basis. This requirement is part of the responsibility determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFA, if such information has not been provided previously under this or another NIFA program. Copies of forms recommended for use in fulfilling these requirements will be provided to applicants as part of the pre-award process. Although an applicant may be eligible based on its status as one of these entities, there are factors that may exclude an applicant from receiving federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits under this program (e.g., debarment or suspension of an individual involved or a determination that an applicant is not responsible based on submitted organizational management information).

The NIFA Federal Assistance Policy Guide, a compendium of basic NIFA policies and procedures that apply to all NIFA awards, unless there are statutory, regulatory, or award-specific requirements to the contrary, is available at http://nifa.usda.gov/policy-guide.

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

• David Corman, Program Director, CISE/CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8754, email: dcorman@nsf.gov
• Radhakisan Baheti, Program Director, ENG/ECCS, 525, telephone: (703) 292-8339, email: rbaheti@nsf.gov
• Sankar Basu, Program Director, CISE/CCF, telephone: (703) 292-7843, email: sabasu@nsf.gov
• Bruce Hamilton, Program Director, ENG/CBET, 565, telephone: (703) 292-7066, email: bhamilto@nsf.gov
• Bruce Kramer, Program Director, ENG/CMMI, 545, telephone: (703) 292-5348, email: bkramer@nsf.gov
• Anita Nikolich, Program Director, CISE/ACI, telephone: (703) 292-4551, email: anikolic@nsf.gov
• Wendy Nilsen, Program Director, CISE/IIS, telephone: (703) 292-2568, email: wnilsen@nsf.gov
• Gurdip Singh, Program Director, CISE/CNS, telephone: (703) 292-8061, email: gsingh@nsf.gov
• Sylvia Spengler, Program Director, CISE/IIS, 1125, telephone: (703) 292-8930, email: sspengle@nsf.gov
• Ralph Wachter, Program Director, CISE/CNS, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: rwachter@nsf.gov
• Daniel Massey, Program Director, DHS S&T, telephone: (202) 254-0908, email: daniel.massey@hq.dhs.gov
• David Kuehn, Program Manager, DOT/FHWA, telephone: (202) 493-3414, email: david.kuehn@dot.gov
• Kevin Dopart, Program Director, DOT/ITS JPO, telephone: (202) 366-8034, email: kevin.dopart@dot.gov
• Yuri Gawdiak, Manager of Strategic Analysis, NASA ARMD, telephone: (202) 358-1853, email: yuri.o.gawdiak@nasa.gov
• Vinay Pai, Program Director, NIH/NIBIB, telephone: (301) 451-4781, email: vinay.pai@nih.gov
• Danilo Tagle, Associate Director for Special Initiatives, NIH/NCATS, telephone: (301) 594-8064, email: danilo.tagle@nih.gov
• Bradford Hesse, Program Director, NIH/NCI, telephone: (301) 594-9904, email: bradford.hesse@nih.gov
• Daniel Schmoldt, National Program Leader, USDA-NIFA, telephone: (202) 720-4807, email: dschmoldt@nifa.usda.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

• FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.

IX. OTHER INFORMATION

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA): http://www.dhs.gov/st-hsarpa

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD): http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/

National Institutes of Health (NIH):

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB): http://www.nibib.nih.gov

Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR): http://obssr.od.nih.gov/

National Cancer Institute (NCI): http://www.cancer.gov/

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS): http://www.ncats.nih.gov/

U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA): http://www.nifa.usda.gov/ http://nifa.usda.gov/policy-guide

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.

To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov

• Location: 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230
• For General Information
  (NSF Information Center): (703) 292-5111
• TDD (for the hearing-impaired): (703) 292-5090
• To Order Publications or Forms:
  Send an e-mail to: nsfpubs@nsf.gov
  or telephone: (703) 292-7827
• To Locate NSF Employees: (703) 292-5111

PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230

X. APPENDIX

Legislative Authority:

The USDA-NIFA authority for this solicitation is contained in section 2(b) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), of the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). AFRI authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to award competitive grants for fundamental and applied research, extension, and education to address food and agricultural sciences. AFRI awards are subject to the NIFA regulations found at 7 CFR Part 3430. NIFA's authority to participate in the issuance of a joint RFA is 7 U.S.C. SS 3319b.

National Science Foundation

Policies and Important Links Privacy FOIA Help Contact NSF Contact Web Master SiteMap

The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA
Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 | TDD: (800) 281-8749

Top of page