National Science Foundation Facility Request Procedures: How does it work? NSF Facilities Users’ Workshop 24 September 2007 Brigitte Baeuerle (EOL), Jim Huning and Steve Nelson (NSF/ATM)

National Science Foundation PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES To describe current request process for Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities; To explain the reasoning behind the changes, implemented in late 2004; To clarify roles and responsibilities of NSF Program Officers, Facility Managers (FMs), Observing Facilities Assessment Panel (OFAP) and Principal Investigators (PIs)

National Science Foundation NSF DEPLOYMENT POOL (DP) Reserved “pot” of money (approx. 4 Million/year) exclusively dedicated to support field campaigns that use LAOF; Covers costs associated with deployment of LAOF (shipping, fuel, fees, leases, comms, per diem, housing, travel, …); Does not cover salaries (except temp hires and OT); Does not cover PI support or expenses; Does not cover maintenance; Does not cover purchase of new instrumentation; Does not cover expenses related to project-specific support provided by CDS or FPS (former JOSS support).

National Science Foundation Observing Facilities Assessment Panel (OFAP) NCAR-run Advisory Panel 18 scientists/recognized experts in fields of observational meteorology Appointment based on recommendation by NSF POs, FM, current OFAP members, interest Meets twice per year (Spring, Fall) 5 year term (approx. 6 mtgs) Provides technical assessment of facility requirements to FM, PIs and NSF POs; Provides input concerning experiment design and facility usage incl. resources allocations (flight hours, expendables etc)

National Science Foundation FACILITIES COVERED BY DP NSF/NCAR C-130 NSF/NCAR G-V UWY King Air NRL P-3 with NCAR ELDORA Wyoming Cloud Radar (on KA as well as C-130) CSU/CHILL Radar NCAR SPOL Radar NCAR Integrated Sounding Systems (ISS/MISS) & Multiple Antenna Profiler (MAPR) NCAR Integrated Surface Flux Systems (ISFS) GPS Advanced Upper0Air Sounding Systems (GAUS, MGAUS) GPS Dropsonde (AVAPS) System Not currently covered: Driftsonde Raman-shifted Eye-Safe Aerosol Lidar (REAL)

National Science Foundation IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW PROCEDURES IN 2004 New policy and procedures are now in effect and began to impact programs this fiscal year with T- PARC Main Objectives: Assists NSF program officers and the broader community in more effective planning for field campaign Assist FM in more effective planning of maintenance and improvements in NSF supported facilities

National Science Foundation Benefits For PIs: Increased lead time for planning of field campaigns, especially complex programs ; More rigorous and thorough early review process early in the planning process; Formal proposal to NSF (SPO) provides a mechanism to support project management For NSF: Better coordination with international and national partners; representatives of other agencies may attend/present at OFAP (for clarity and to enhance overall understanding of proposed campaign) Holistic review of entire scientific and experimental design; m any field campaigns involve critical facilities that were previously not reviewed along with the NSF facilities; Better understanding of total campaign cost

National Science Foundation Benefits For EOL: Increased lead time for planning of field campaigns, especially complex programs; FMs are finding it easier to schedule facility upgrades and maintenance as well as new developments in between campaigns Challenges Some additional up-front work on all parts (cost estimates, additional documentation…); PIs have to be organized early on; Increased trend in demand for facilities many years out

National Science Foundation REQUEST PROCESS Procedures are now different for “large” and “small” programs. >“Large” Programs: Field Costs >$1,000K (multiple facilities), and/or Unusually Complex Programs, and/or Programs with Int’l Partners >“Small” Programs – all the rest >NSF, in consultation with PIs and FMs, will determine category, cost estimators also available from EOL website

National Science Foundation SMALL PROGRAMS – PROCESS Contact/Inform NSF Program Manager Provide Letter of Intent to EOL & NSF >Name, Location, Dates, Facilities, Science >Inclusion in long term planning schedule Contact/Interact w. FMs / Facility Staff reg. requirements/ plans Prepare/Submit Facility Request to FMs; Prepare/Submit OFAP science overview ppt to FMs; Prepare/Submit NSF Proposal to NSF; science portion to EOL/Univ; For NCAR-led campaigns, prepare/submit Proposal to EOL Director for mail scientific review

National Science Foundation SMALL PROGRAMS -- Timeline Requests possible bi-annually (1 Jul/1 Dec) months ahead of campaign 8 months for implementation

National Science Foundation Large Field Programs (>$1M or Complex) Two antecedent documents required: Scientific Program Overview (SPO) and Experimental Design Overview (EDO) >Required before submission of science proposals >Required before submission of facility requests SDO and EDO are formal documents and final decisions for science proposal submission(s) will be made based on their reviews

National Science Foundation SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM OVERVIEW Overall justification of the scientific program Section D, Project Description >Scientific Rationale - Holistic >Brief description of experimental design; >Relationship to prior similar efforts; >List of all facilities and PIs (irrespective of source of support); Formal submission of the SPO to NSF via Fastlane; NSF will distribute SPO or equivalent document to relevant FMs and OFAP

National Science Foundation EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OVERVIEW Overall concept of the experimental design, resource needs and management. Holistic Structure >Executive Summary >Scientific Rationale/Objectives >Experimental Design >Project Mgt (before and during field campaign) >Data Mgt >List of Facilities and PIs EDO submitted to NSF (Huning and NSF Program Officer); copy to relevant FM and to OFAP

National Science Foundation LARGE PROGRAMS – PROCESS Contact/Inform NSF Program Manager (summer/fall FY-3) Provide Letter of Intent to EOL & NSF >Name, Location, Dates, Facilities, Science >Inclusion in long term planning schedule Preliminary Meeting with FM(s) and facility staff Obtain preliminary cost estimates from FM for inclusion in SPO Prepare/Submit SPO to NSF Prepare/Submit EDO to NSF and EOL Prepare/Submit.ppt overview to EOL Prepare/Submit Facility Request to FM Prepare/Submit NSF Proposal to NSF; science portion to EOL/Univ. Prepare updated.ppt overview to EOL

National Science Foundation LARGE PROGRAMS -- Timeline Only one review cycle per fiscal year. Scientific Review of SPO (completed by May FY-2) as well as individual science proposals (completed by Jan FY-1) FY-2 SPO/EDO and Facility Request submission dates under discussion 8 to 19 months for implementation

National Science Foundation FM Responsibilities: >Preparation of feasibilities and cost estimates for facility requests and/or preparation of project assessments for EDOs; >Preparation of Project Feasibility Presentations for OFAP Meeting Note: Documents shared with NSF and PIs ahead of OFAP NSF Responsibilities: >Conduct of scientific review of all NSF submitted proposals (SPOs as well as individual proposals); The black hole – what happens in between the time a request is submitted and the OFAP Meeting?

National Science Foundation EOL Responsibilities: >Where NCAR scientists have lead proposal, EOL Director will oversee scientific review process and coordinate with appropriate NCAR Lab Director, NSF program office and Facility Managers >Preparation of “Global Feasibility” (possible project combinations based on direct facility conflicts, resource limitations etc., shared with NSF) >Planning/Conduct of all aspects of OFAP Meeting including sending out review material to OFAP

National Science Foundation What happens at the OFAP Meeting? Each OFAP member is asked for review preferences and conflicts of interest before mtg; Each OFAP member is assigned up to 4 OFAP requests in their area of expertise before OFAP meeting, one of those as lead reviewer; Each project is introduced – w/o bias - by lead reviewer using scientific overview presentation provided by requesting PI, to entire OFAP, followed by feasibility analysis presentation by facility staff; Assigned review team presents their evaluation, followed by discussion involving all OFAP attendees (i.e., NSF, Facility staff, OFAP) Review team summarizes findings in writing and provides to FM THE OFAP DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER A PROJECT WILL BE FUNDED OR NOT

National Science Foundation Summary shared with NSF and PIs PIs are welcome to respond to NSF PO NSF Program Officer makes final decision based on scientific review of all NSF submitted proposals, feasibility analyses, OFAP recommendation and advice as well as budgetary and scheduling constraints. NSF PO informs PIs about decision EOL provides Allocation Letter What happens after the OFAP Meeting?

National Science Foundation Questions from Workshop Attendees Out of cycle requests >Not covered by DP but NSF PO Program Funds >Challenging: schedule constraints, little adaptability Cost Recovery >On a non-interference basis with NSF programs >Also require some kind of scientific review >“Appropriate Use of the Facility” Multi-year Programs >Approval for several years possible >Mid-project review suggested >Will require cost adjustments

National Science Foundation Questions?