Fiscal Year 2016: No Current Data Available Fiscal Year 2017: No Current Data Available Fiscal Year 2018: No Current Data Available
The National Science Foundation is an independent Federal agency created to promote the progress of science, to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare and to secure the national defense. The NSF annually funds approximately 20 percent of basic, Federally-supported college and university research.
|Recipient||Amount||Start Date||End Date|
|Washington State University||$ 235,829||   ||2022-09-01||2027-08-31|
|The University Of Akron||$ 131,479||   ||2022-09-01||2027-08-31|
|Case Western Reserve University||$ 86,117||   ||2022-09-01||2027-08-31|
|Delaware State University||$ 799,058||   ||2021-09-01||2027-08-31|
|Florida State University||$ 124,152||   ||2022-08-01||2027-07-31|
|Purdue University||$ 232,799||   ||2022-07-01||2027-06-30|
|North Carolina State University||$ 142,377||   ||2022-07-01||2027-06-30|
|University Of California, Irvine||$ 266,803||   ||2022-07-01||2027-06-30|
|University Of California, Irvine||$ 268,689||   ||2022-07-01||2027-06-30|
|University Of California, Davis||$ 264,452||   ||2022-07-01||2027-06-30|
Fiscal Year 2016: In Fiscal Year 2016, approximately 9,200 proposals were received and about 2,400 awards were made. Fiscal Year 2017: In Fiscal Year 2017, approximately 9,300 proposals will be received and about 2,800 awards will be made. Fiscal Year 2018: In Fiscal Year 2018, approximately 9,900 proposals will be received and about 2,300 awards will be made.
Uses and Use Restrictions
Grant funds may be used for paying costs necessary to conduct research or studies, such as salaries and wages, permanent equipment, expendable materials and supplies, travel, participant support; publication costs, and other direct and indirect costs.
Primary responsibility for general supervision of all grant activities rests with the grantee institution; the principal investigator is responsible for the scientific work.
Funds may not be used for purposes other than those specified in the proposal.
Except where a program solicitation establishes more restrictive eligibility criteria, individuals and organizations in the following categories may submit proposals: Universities and colleges; Non-profit, non-academic organizations; for-profit organizations; State and local governments; and unaffiliated individuals.
See the NSF Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter I.E.
for a full description of eligibility requirements: http//www.nsf.gov/publications/pub summ.jsp?ods key=gpg.
Proposals must be signed electronically by an official authorized to commit the institution or organization in business and financial affairs and who can commit the organization to certain proposal certifications. Costs will be determined in accordance with OMB Circular Nos. A-21 (2 CFR Part 220) for educational institutions, No. A-87 (2 CFR Part 225) for State and local governments, and A-122 (2 CFR Part 230) for nonprofit organizations. Applicants for fellowship support must show evidence of ability such as academic records, letters of recommendation, graduate record examination scores, and grade point average. 2 CFR 200, Subpart E - Cost Principles applies to this program.
Aplication and Award Process
Preapplication coordination may be required.
Environmental impact information may be required for this program.
Environmental impact information is not required for this program.
This program is eligible for coverage under E.O.
12372, 'Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.' An applicant should consult the office or official designated as the single point of contact in his or her State for more information on the process the State requires to be followed in applying for assistance, if the State has selected the program for review.
This program is excluded from coverage under 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. By electronic submission via FastLane or Grants.gov of a formal proposal, and, in some programs, a preliminary proposal, describing the planned project and the proposed amount of the grant. For guidelines, see specific funding opportunities and the Grant Proposal Guide; http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub summ.jsp?ods key=gpg.
NSF staff members review and evaluate all proposals based on a set of criteria established by the National Science Board and, if applicable, solicitation-specific review criteria. In most cases reviews are undertaken with the advice of scientist, engineers, educators, and other appropriate persons who are specialists in the fields covered by the proposals. NSF makes awards on a competitive basis. Notification of an award is transmitted electronically to the submitting organization by a NSF Grants and Agreements Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements.
Contact the headquarters or regional office, as appropriate, for application deadlines.
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.
Range of Approval/Disapproval Time
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 is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.
The principal investigator may request, in writing, within 90 days of a declination or return, that NSF reconsider its action in declining or returning any proposal or application.
A renewal proposal competes with all other proposals and must be developed fully as though the proposer is applying for the first time. Renewal proposals must be submitted at least six months before additional funding is required or consistent with an established deadline, target date or submission window. Principal investigators are encouraged to discuss renewal proposals with the NSF program officer prior to submission.
Formula and Matching Requirements
This program has no statutory formula. This program has no matching requirements. Mandatory cost sharing will only be required for NSF programs when explicitly authorized by the NSF Director, the National Science Board, or legislation. In those rare instances, cost sharing requirements will be clearly identified in the program solicitation. Inclusion of voluntary, committed cost sharing is prohibited. MOE requirements are not applicable to this program.
Length and Time Phasing of Assistance
Award duration of up to 5 years. Method of awarding/releasing assistance: Standard or continuing grant, fellowship, or cooperative agreement. Method of awarding/releasing assistance: lump sum.
Post Assistance Requirements
No program reports are required.
No cash reports are required.
Annual Project Reports should be submitted at least 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period.
Within 90 days following the expiration of the award, a Final Progress Report and a Project Outcomes Report for the General Public must be submitted.
Grantees are required to report the status of funds received from NSF on a quarterly basis through the submission of Federal Financial Report (FFR).
Information about reporting requirements is contained in the Award and Administration Guide: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub summ.jsp?ods key=aag.
No performance monitoring is required.
In accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR 200, Subpart F - Audit Requirements, non-Federal entities that expend financial assistance of $750,000 or more in Federal awards will have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Non-Federal entities that expend less than $750,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in 2 CFR 200.503.
Records, supporting documents, statistical records, and other records pertinent to a grant must be retained by the grantee for a period of 3 years from submission of the Final Project Report. Special record keeping requirements may apply to fellowships.
(Project Grants) FY 16 $1,348,784,000; FY 17 est $1,356,025,000; and FY 18 est $1,219,430,000 - 1) FY 2016 Obligation projections are the FY 2016 NSF Current Plan 2) FY 2016 Obligations are the FY 2016 NSF Appropriations Actual 3) FY 2017 Obligations estimates are the FY 2017 NSF Current Plan 4) FY 2018 Obligations estimates are the FY 2018 NSF Congressional Request.
Range and Average of Financial Assistance
Range Low $2,540 Range High $181,638,052 Average $158,742.
Regulations, Guidelines, and Literature
NSF Website: www.nsf.gov; 48 CFR Chapter 25; 45 CFR Chapter VI; Proposals and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub summ.jsp?ods key=papp), which incorporates the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) and Award & Administration Guide (AAG).
Regional or Local Office
Clark Cooper 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Email: email@example.com Phone: 7032928800
Criteria for Selecting Proposals
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposals preparation requirements. 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 who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the 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. All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader impacts of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposals being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgments. Relevant questions are: (1) What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?; (2) How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?; (3) How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.); (4) To what extend does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts; (5) How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?; (6) Is the sufficient access to resources?; (7) What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?; (8) How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning?; (9) How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)?; (10) To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships?; (11) Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?, and (12) What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society? NSF staff 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 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 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.
Racing driver and renowned television presenter, Vicki Butler-Henderson, launches a Crayford garage run as a social enterprise, SMaRT garage services.