NSF - Proposal Development - Office of Sponsored Programs

Syracuse University Office of Sponsored Programs
NSF Checklist – 13.1
-Effective Jan 14, 2013 -
Read specific solicitation instructions – they will
trump the GPG.
Allow SRO access to OSP to facilitate review
Label files “FINAL” to avoid confusion in versioning
Merit Review Criteria:
 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. Thus, 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:
a. Advance knowledge and understanding within
its own field or across different fields
(Intellectual Merit); and
b. 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?
 Font: Arial, Courier New, Palatino Linotype 10pt. or
larger. Times New Roman 11pt. or larger.
Margins 1” on all sides.
No headers or footers other than section pagination
at bottom of page.
Correct solicitation number/closing date
Correct title (if prefix required)
If renewal-previous award number provided
Pre-proposal – checked as applicable
Also as applicable: Beginning Investigator;
Humans/Animals; EAGER/RAPID;
Proprietary Info.; International
Activities; etc.
three separate text boxes unless special characters
(upload the 1 page summary as supplementary doc
with separately labeled sections)
1) Overview: a description of the activity that would
result if the proposal were funded and a statement
of objectives and methods to be employed
2) Intellectual merit: how the proposed activity would
advance knowledge, and
3) Broader impacts: how the proposed activity would
benefit society and contribute to the achievement
of specific, desired societal outcomes
 Additional l instructions will be provided in
c. Table of contents – automatically generated
d. PROJECT DESCRIPTION – Ordinarily 15 Pg. Limit
 Describe in separate sections the Research
Activities and Broader Impacts Activities:
 what you want to do,
 why you want to do it,
 how you plan to do it, and the rationale for
your approach & why it is most suitable,
 how you will know if you are successful, (for
each activity or objective, and the project
overall), and
 what benefits could accrue if the project is
successful (So what…).
 These issues apply to both the technical aspects of
the proposal and the way in which the project may
make broader contributions.
-Next page-
Prior NSF support for project PI/co-PI(s) who
received any NSF funding in the past five (5) years:
(a) the NSF award number, amount and period of
(b) Project title;
(c) a summary of the results of the completed work,
including accomplishments, described in two
separate sections: the Intellectual Merit and
Broader Impact activities
(d) publications resulting from the NSF award;
(e) evidence of research products and their
availability, including, but not limited to: data,
publications, samples, physical collections,
software, and models, as described in any Data
Management Plan; and
(f) if the proposal is for renewed support, a
description of the relation of the completed work to
the proposed work.
 If any PI/ co-PI has received more than one
award (excluding amendments); report on the
award most closely related to the proposal.
Do not include URLs necessary for review (reviewers
not obligated to view)
e. REFERENCES CITED – No Pg. limit (reasonable)
 Include complete citation: all authors (et al not
allowed), article and journal title, book title, vol.
no., pg no’s., and year of publication.
 If available electronically, provide url.
 If there are no references, upload a document so
BIOSKETCHES required for all named Senior
Personnel – 2 Pg. Limit
Education is in chronological order
Appointments are in reverse chronological order
Full citation of 10 products: five closely related and
five other significant
 Acceptable products must be citable and
accessible e.g. publications, data sets,
software, patents, and copyrights.
 Unacceptable products are unpublished
documents not yet submitted for publication,
invited lectures, and additional lists of products.
Up to five Synergistic Activities that demonstrate
the broader impact of the individual’s professional
and scholarly activities, focusing on the integration
and transfer of knowledge as well as its creation
Collaborators & co-editors (past 48 months): in
alpha order with current affiliation.
Graduate and Post-doc advisors as applicable (note
deceased if applicable)
Graduate students
g. BUDGET – funds to pay for personnel and other
items essential to conduct the proposed project
 Used OSP budget template.
 Senior Personnel ordinarily limited to two months
salary compensation from all active NSF awards
(deviation addressed in budget justification)
 Equipment defined as ‘item with acquisition cost of
5K or more & expected life of more than 1 year’
 Participant Support-transportation, per diem,
stipends, other related costs for participants or
trainees (not SU employees) on NSF sponsored
conferences, meetings, symposia, training activities,
workshops. Some educational projects conducted at
schools may be employees being trained.
 Tuition has been addressed for grad students
 Adhered to budget/indirect cost limits as applicable
 All items necessary, reasonable, allowable (cost
principles, SU policy, and solicitation), allocable, and
consistently treated.
 Cost sharing not included unless mandated by
 Organized for easy comparison to NSF budget form
 Describes all Sr. Personnel role/committed effort
 Noted 8.5 AY appt./3% salary escalation rate
 Justified all other personnel: post-doc; graduate
students (AY 0.5 FTE; Sum. 0.5-1.0 FTE)
 Administrative/Clerical ordinarily not allowable
 Essentiality of equipment and all associated costs to
make functional adequately addressed
 Describe travel purpose, location, no. of travelers
and cost breakdown, e.g., registration, airfare,
lodging, meals if not included in registration, ground
 Number of participants and basis for costs
requested in each subcategory
 Consultant-describe work to be performed; daily
rate of pay; number of days(must also provide a
letter of collaboration with above described
elements) and biographical sketch
 Subawardees have provided budget, budget
narrative, scope of work, bios, current/pending,
facilities, letter of collaboration signed by
authorized organizational representative (AOR)
-Next page-
 Current and pending (including “this proposal”) for
all senior personnel, and consultants.
 OSP can develop if project title, and all SU
senior personnel provided ~15 days prior to
confidentiality, security, intellectual property,
or other rights or requirements;
 policies and provisions for re-use, redistribution, and the production of derivatives;
 plans for archiving data, samples, and other
research products, and for preservation of
Publication costs also include the costs associated
with data sharing plan, e.g., documentation, storage
and indexing of data and databases; development,
documentation and debugging of software; and
storage, preservation, documentation, indexing,
etc., of physical specimens, etc.
Describe only those organizational and collaborator
resources (both physical and personnel) that are
directly applicable and available to support the
project in the event it will be funded.
 This information is used to assess the capability
of the entire project team to perform the
proposed research and broader impact
No financial information may be included
 Must be provided if budget includes funds for a
 Adapted OSP’s Pdoc Mentoring Plan template or
 Wrote own plan: e.g., career counseling; training in
proposal preparation; publications & presentations;
training in responsible professional practices; etc.
 One governing plan provided for collaborative
research or project with subaward.
 Plan included – used generic requirements below to
address how proposal conformed to NSF policy on
the dissemination and sharing of research results
(see AAG Chapter VI.D.4),
 Generic requirements addressed:
 types of data, samples, physical collections,
software, curriculum materials, etc. to be
produced in the course of the project;
 standards to be used for data and metadata
format and content (if absent or deemed
inadequate, this should be documented along
with any proposed solutions or remedies);
 policies for access and sharing including
provisions for appropriate protection of privacy,
access to them.
Followed specific requirements and plans for my
applicable directorates, office, etc:
Or Included statement that no detailed plan is
needed, with clear justification.
 Project Summary – if special characters required.
 Documentation of collaborative arrangements of
significance to the proposal through letters of
commitment, including unfunded collaborations
 Letters of support required by a specific program
 Special components required through specific
program solicitation
 See GPG for additional examples