NSF Guidance on 2012 Core and EarthScope Facility Integration
25 April 2011
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
DIRECTORATE FOR GEOSCIENCES
DIVISION OF EARTH SCIENCES
To:
Meghan Miller, President, UNAVCO
David Simpson, President, Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology
From:
Robert Detrick, Division Director for Earth Sciences, NSF
Subject: NSF Guidance on 2012 Core and EarthScope Facility Integration Proposals
Date:
25 April 2011
1. Background
The Division of Earth Sciences (EAR) in the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) at the
National Science Foundation (NSF) supports three major seismic and geodetic facilities: the
core seismic Facility managed by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology
(IRIS), the core geodetic Facility managed by UNAVCO, and the EarthScope Facility
managed jointly by IRIS and UNAVCO. In 2013, NSF plans to integrate the current IRIS
core seismic Facility with the USArray seismic component of the EarthScope Facility, and the
current UNAVCO core geodetic Facility with the Plate Boundary Observatory geodetic
component of the EarthScope Facility. Near the end of the first five years of integrated
operations, in 2017-2018, NSF intends to recompete these two integrated seismic and
geodetic facilities. This approach will: (1) adhere to NSB-08-16 and related policies on
periodic recompetition of awards; (2) adhere to NSB-approved plans (NSB-03-62 and NSB07-116) for IRIS and UNAVCO operation of the EarthScope Facility through FY2018; (3)
allow sufficient time for community-supported facility integration; (4) unify and streamline
facility operations and maintenance, further leveraging existing NSF investments; (5)
increase efficiency in NSF oversight of these facilities; (6) minimize disruption to EarthScope
Facility operations (especially deployment of USArray to Alaska in 2014); and (7) minimize
disruption to existing international and other U.S. Federal agency partnerships.
This letter is intended to request a proposal from IRIS to manage and operate in an
integrated fashion for the period 1 October 2013 through 30 September 2018 a new Global
EarthScope Seismic Facility (GESF) comprised of the USArray component of the
EarthScope Facility and the core seismic Facility currently managed by IRIS. This letter is
also intended to request a proposal from UNAVCO to manage and operate in an integrated
fashion for the same period a new Global EarthScope Geodetic Facility (GEGF) comprised of
the PBO component of the EarthScope Facility and the current core geodetic Facility
managed by UNAVCO. The letter also provides guidance on desired proposal structure,
proposal review process, and anticipated NSF management should an award be
recommended.
2. Proposal Guidance
2.1 General
The GEGF and GESF proposals should be submitted to NSF via the EAR Instrumentation
and Facilities Program no later than 1 September 2012. Greg Anderson and Russell Kelz will
be the cognizant NSF Program Officers for the review of the GESF and GEGF proposals,
respectively, and if awards are recommended, would manage the subsequent awards. The
proposals should be submitted via FastLane.
1
NSF Guidance on 2012 Core and EarthScope Facility Integration
25 April 2011
2.2 Structure and Proposal Preparation
The proposals should be prepared in accordance with the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (NSF
11-01 http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg) with deviations from the
GPG as specified below.
The GEGF proposal will be based on an underlying integrated Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) with the following high-level elements: (a) Management of the current global geodetic
networks overseen by UNAVCO; (b) Management of the PBO component of the EarthScope
Facility; (c) PI support, including the UNAVCO and PBO portable instrument pools; (d) Polar
programs support activities; (e) Data management activities; (f) Education and outreach
efforts; (g) New initiatives; and (h) Project management.
The GESF proposal will be based on an underlying integrated Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) with the following high-level elements: (a) Management of the Global Seismographic
Network; (b) Management of the USArray Transportable Array, including magnetotelluric
systems; (c) PI support, including PASSCAL and the USArray Flexible Array; (d) Polar
programs support activities; (e) Data management activities; (f) Education and outreach
efforts; (g) New initiatives; and (h) Project management.
Each WBS will be specified down to the third level (i.e., x.y.z). Every section of the proposal,
and every element of the proposal budget, will be tied clearly and directly to the WBS for that
proposal. In addition, each proposal will include:
1. A detailed WBS Dictionary similar to the 2007 EarthScope operations and
maintenance proposal.
2. Detailed and justified annual and five-year cumulative budgets in both NSF 1030
format and a format similar to Tables 5.10 and 5.14 in the 2007 EarthScope
operations and maintenance proposal. The tables must be keyed directly to the WBS
and presented at a detail level comparable to the 2007 EarthScope operations and
maintenance proposal.
3. A detailed table or similar structure showing the current core activities and current ES
activities, proposed integrated activities, and proposed new activities. This structure
will clearly set out the budget for each set of activities and provide a cumulative
budget. This structure will be keyed directly to the integrated WBS for each proposal.
4. A table or similar structure that specifies the names, educational background, and
organizational responsibilities for each person for whom support is sought.
Each proposal will provide these materials in three main sections as specified below:
Section I: Project description and scientific justification (limited to 75 pages)
This section will provide a brief overview that describes the proposed activities and
provides the scientific justification for the work proposed. The scientific justification
must be clear and tied directly to the applicable community-vetted guiding
documents, including the 2010 EarthScope Science Plan, the 2009 Grand
Challenges plan for seismology, and the 2009 geodesy strategic plan. In addition,
this section of the proposal must demonstrate that input from the broad Earth science
community served by EAR has been solicited and incorporated. This section should
be uploaded in the Project Description section in FastLane.
Section II: Budget and Budget Justification
2
NSF Guidance on 2012 Core and EarthScope Facility Integration
25 April 2011
This section will provide detailed annual and five-year cumulative budgets in the
standard NSF budget format, and a format similar to Tables 5.10 and 5.14 in the
2007 EarthScope operations and maintenance proposal. This section also will
include detailed budget justifications.
Section III: Other required supporting documentation
This section will provide the following supporting documentation:





Biographical sketches for all named senior personnel;
Current and pending support for all named senior personnel;
Data Management Plan, no more than two pages in length, as specified in
Section II.C.2.j of the NSF Grant Proposal Guide;
A detailed WBS Dictionary similar to that in the 2007 EarthScope operations and
maintenance proposal, submitted as an Other Supplementary Document in
FastLane. IRIS and UNAVCO should jointly propose a maximum length for the
WBS Dictionary; and
If applicable, a one-page supplementary document describing mentoring activities
provided to postdoctoral researchers supported on the project (see Section II.C.2.j
of the Grant Proposal Guide,)
Please note that all scientific justification material must appear in Section 1; no additional
supplementary justification materials are to be included in either proposal. Any such
supplemental materials will not be considered in the review process.
In addition to electronic submission via FastLane, NSF also requests a single hardcopy of
each proposal be submitted as two bound volumes: one volume for Section 1 of the
proposal, and one volume that includes Sections 2 and 3 of the proposal.
NSF anticipates that IRIS and UNAVCO will collaborate in the preparation of these proposals
as follows:
 IRIS and UNAVCO will collaborate to develop a common high-level organization for
the proposals, which will assist greatly with the review process for both the GESF and
GEGF proposals.
 The sections of the GESF and GEGF proposals involving activities that are currently
part of the EarthScope Facility will be prepared jointly by the two organizations.
2.3 Budget Guidance
NSF anticipates that the first year NSF/EAR budget baseline will be no more than $27.62
million for the GESF proposal and $14.89 million for the GEGF proposal. The budget
request for years two through five of each proposal may include three percent (3%) inflation
per year. Please note that these are maximum levels and are subject to review and
availability of funds.
Polar support activities proposed in either proposal will be guided by the outcome of the
ongoing Polar Network Science Committee planning process, including an anticipated
workshop in Fall 2011. NSF/OPP will provide appropriate budget guidance after this process
has been completed.
3
NSF Guidance on 2012 Core and EarthScope Facility Integration
25 April 2011
NSF anticipates that integration of the management of these facility activities could lead to
cost savings for support of current functions. Any new activities that are part of either
proposal must be budgeted along with continuing activities within the maximum funding
target given above for each proposal.
2.4 Review Process
NSF anticipates that the GEGF and GESF proposals will undergo ad hoc review with the use
of some overlapping reviewers, followed by a joint independent cost review and a joint
special emphasis panel review. A copy of this letter will be provided to all reviewers along
with the review criteria specified below.
3. Proposal Review Criteria
The GEGF and GESF proposals will be reviewed based on scientific and technical merit,
emphasizing budget justification. The proposals will be reviewed in accordance with the two
National Science Board approved merit review criteria, as well as the additional merit review
criteria stated below.
3.1 NSF Merit Review Criteria – Grant Proposal Guide (Chapter III.A)
1.





2.





What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding
within its own field or across different fields?
How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If
appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.)
To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or
potentially transformative concepts?
How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
Is there sufficient access to resources?
What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting
teaching, training, and learning?
How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented
groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)?
To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as
facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships?
Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological
understanding?
What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?
NSF staff also will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:
 Integration of Research and Education
One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster integration of
research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at
academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities
where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers,
educators, and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse
4
NSF Guidance on 2012 Core and EarthScope Facility Integration

25 April 2011
education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity
of learning perspectives.
Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities.
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and
men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- 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.
Please also note the following:
 Postdoctoral mentoring statements, if applicable, will be evaluated under the Broader
Impacts criterion.
 Data management plans of no more than two pages in length will be evaluated under
both the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria, as appropriate.
3.2 Additional NSF Review Criteria Specific to this Proposal
A. How well demonstrated is the need for the proposed Facility?
 How well is the scientific justification for the proposed Facility tied to the appropriate
community-developed guiding documents?
 How clearly has the proposer demonstrated that input from the broad Earth science
community served by EAR has been solicited and incorporated?
 What is the intrinsic merit of the Earth science research that will benefit from the
proposed facility?
 How many investigators will substantially benefit from the proposed facility, and how
strong are their Earth science research programs?
 How appropriate and essential for the intended Earth science research is the
proposed facility?
 How much will research projects supported by the Division of Earth Sciences benefit
from the proposed facility?
B. How well conceived is the integrated maintenance and operation plan and budget for the
proposed Facility?
 Are there well-defined vision, mission, goals, and objectives for maintenance and
operations of the integrated Facility to serve the Earth science community?
 Are the planned activities justified and adequate for management and operations of
the integrated Facility?
 Is the rationale used to develop task descriptions, milestones, and resource
requirements adequately explained in the proposal?
 Are there a coherent and effective leadership, management, and organizational
structure? Are the duties of each staff position clear and is the need for each position
justified? Are the salaries and time commitments appropriate and well justified?
 To what degree does the proposer have the ability to provide access to a facility
intended to serve a national or regional research community?
 Does the project have sufficient financial and audit controls?
 Are there adequate descriptions of the hardware and software to be maintained and
operated, and the means by which this would be accomplished?
 Are the design, construction, installation, and performance history of the installed
equipment adequate to insure efficient long-term maintenance and meaningful
scientific data collection?
5
NSF Guidance on 2012 Core and EarthScope Facility Integration


25 April 2011
What is the quality of the plan for risk management for the Facility? Does the risk
management plan adequately address budget and other project risks?
What is the quality of the plan for annual critical self-assessment?
C. Proposed Facility Budget
 Is the proposed budget appropriate, clear, and well justified?
 Does the budget demonstrate cost savings for support of current functions, achieved
through integrated management of the components of the proposed Facility?
 Does the proposal include specific activities associated with the work to be performed
and the activity-based resource descriptions?
 Are FTE levels appropriate? Are all labor costs used in the budget appropriately and
correctly identified? Are the activities and unit costs associated with the project scope
clearly identified and defined in the budget?
 Are project resources effectively allocated to all personnel tasks, activities, and
equipment and material and supply costs?
 Is the budget consistent with the schedule?
 Are the schedule and budget adequate for maintaining the facility?
 Are the assumptions that have been used to develop the budget, e.g., historical data,
data from similar scope projects, etc., clearly identified and defined? Have all
uncertainties in the project scope and budget been identified?
4. Anticipated Award Management
If the review and approval process is favorable, NSF/EAR intends to recommend award of
the GESF and GEGF proposals via two new Cooperative Agreements. Given the anticipated
award size, each proposal and review package will require National Science Board approval.
Each awardee would be required to submit annual Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) Facilities Performance Reporting Operations data. In addition, each awardee
would submit quarterly and annual project reports and quarterly and annual financial reports
showing a comparison between budgeted amounts approved in the Facility’s annual plan
and budget and the actual expenditures in major budget categories. Finally, each awardee
would be expected to cooperate on annual NSF-led site visits. NSF does not anticipate use
of earned value management for these Cooperative Agreements should an award be
recommended.
6