Beginning April, 24, 2015, proposals submitted in response to Program Solicitations in FastLane will undergo a series of automated proposal compliance validation checks to ensure they comply with requirements outlined in the Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (Chapter II.C.2. of the Grants Proposal Guide (GPG)).
These checks will automatically validate a proposal for compliance against proposal sections per type of funding mechanism. For example, an error message will appear if a project description or budget are not provided in proposals submitted in response to a Program Solicitation.
Checks will be triggered when proposers select the “Check Proposal,” “Forward to SPO,” or “Submit Proposal” functions. Depending on the rule being checked, a warning or error message will display when a proposal is found to be non-compliant. If an error message appears, the proposal cannot be submitted until it is compliant.
Please note that these automated compliance checks will not be conducted on proposals submitted to NSF via Grants.gov.
To view a detailed list of all compliance checks, click here
Please direct any questions to the Policy Office in the Division of Institution & Award Support at firstname.lastname@example.org, or (703) 292-8243.
Pending legislation to alter the grantmaking process at the National Science Foundation (NSF) “would have an extraordinarily unfortunate effect” on the $7 billion research agency, presidential science adviser John Holdren said.
The Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology (FIRST) Act, a two-year reauthorization of NSF programs, is expected to be approved this month by the science committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.
During FY13, more than 400 additional proposals were competitively reviewed by NSF. Unfortunately, the number of new awards decreased by 6%.
The FY13 funding rate of 22% is down two percentage points from the previous year, and far below the 32% rate achieved in FY09, at the start of the economic downturn. A full 81% of NSF’s 1,922 awards went to academic institutions, accounting for 24% of all federally funded basic research performed at U.S. colleges and universities.
Additional statistics can be found in NSF’s recent annual report, FY 2013 Performance and Financial Highlights: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14003/nsf14003.pdf
As part of the release of the 2014 Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 14-1), all awardee organizations will be required to submit a Program Income Reporting Worksheet in Research.gov beginning March 1, 2014 in order to report the amount of program income earned and expended between October 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013. This first report will be due to NSF no later than March 31, 2014. Awardee organizations will subsequently be required to submit the Program Income Reporting Worksheet by October 31st each year to report the amount of program income earned and expended during the previous Federal fiscal year (October 1 – September 30). NSF policies related to program income can be found in Chapter III.D.4 of the Award and Administration Guide (AAG).
Program income is defined as gross income earned by the awardee organization that is directly generated by a supported activity or earned as a result of NSF-funding. This includes but is not limited to fees for services performed, the use or rental of real or personal property acquired under the grant, the sale of commodities or items fabricated under the grant, and license fees. Interest earned on advances of Federal funds is not program income.
Research.gov is updated with a Program Income page, which contains additional information and the Program Income Reporting Worksheet. For assistance on completing the worksheet, please reference the Program Income Quick Reference Guide.
If you have any questions about this new reporting requirement, please contact your Grantee Cash Management Section (GCMS) accountant as listed at https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dfm/cmeab.jsp.
The NSF Grant Proposal Guide has been updated and the changes go into effect 02/24/14. The updated guide, as well as a summary of the changes, can be found at the link below.
The revised guide contains changes to policies that impact proposal preparation as well as updates and clarifications intended to make the proposal process more user-friendly.
2014 Grant Proposal Guide
Click here for a summary of significant changes in the new version.
The National Science Foundation’s Office of the Inspector General promised in a written report recently to use every compliance and enforcement tool at its disposal to ensure compliance with federal rules and regulations.
The current Inspector General proposes to expand debarments to include Principal Investigators (PIs) who are not current with submission of required final reports. Debarment is a tool that ensures, for a defined period of time (often three years), that the entire federal government will not conduct additional business with individuals or organizations whose improper conduct leads to questions regarding the party’s honesty, ethics, or competence.
All UGA PIs receiving funds from NSF should take note of this threat and ensure that any and all final technical reports on projects for which they have received NSF funding are submitted in accordance with grant terms. Failure to timely submit required final technical reports to the NSF could torpedo your ability to apply for funds from any federal agency for periods up to three years.
An investigative scientist for the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Office of the Inspector General reported at a recent workshop that the predominant type of research misconduct seen by the NSF is plagiarism.
The scientist, Scott Moore, went on to say that “inexperienced” researchers, in particular, are more likely to submit proposals that contain plagiarized material. For example, approximately 2-3% of NSF proposals in a given year contain actionable plagiarized sections, yet 10-15% of these are submitted by individuals within 5 years of starting their academic career.
CAREER proposals were singled out by Moore during the workshop as having the highest levels of actionable plagiarism. Oftentimes, expert reviewers for NSF discover that CAREER applicants submit proposals plagiarizing the reviewers’ work! NSF also uses plagiarism-detection software to randomly check proposal submissions. All researchers are reminded to take a few minutes and ensure that proposals to any sponsor contain proper citations and attributions, as required. Source: Report on Research Compliance (Vol. 10, No.8, August, 2013)
The National Science Foundation has issued an update explaining the impact of Sequestration on NSF operations for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
The key information from the update is:
- NSF will fully fund all existing continuing grant increments in FY 2013;
- NSF directorates have now received full-year funding allocations, which will allow funding decisions to be made prior to the end of the fiscal year on September 30th;
- NSF expects to make fewer new awards in FY 2013;
- NSF will fully fund all FY 2013 major research equipment and facilities construction projects;
- Competitions for some programs and solicitations may not be conducted in FY 2013; and
- NSF staff will not be furloughed, allowing for no interruptions to the NSF proposal review and award decision making processes.
The original notice (Notice 133) indicated that 1000 fewer new awards would be issued this year. Read the entire update (Important Notice 133A).
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-6, enacted on March 26, 2013) contains a provision that places restrictions on the types of research projects that can be funded through the Political Science Program. Read more from NSF.