1. Tips & Tricks for Submitting an NSF Grant
Guests Panelists
Bruce Maxwell, Professor, Department of Land Resources & Environmental Science
Director, Institute on Ecosystems
David Dickensheets, Professor, Electrical & Computer Engineering
Director, MONT, the Montana Nanotechnology Facility
Presentation by Nika Stoop, Center for Faculty Excellence

2. 5 Tips & Tricks Read the Call for Proposals Carefully and Often
Start and End with your Project Summary
Talk to your Program Officer
Think about your Broader Impacts
Keep the reviewers in mind

3. Parts of the Proposal Narrative Forms Supporting Docs Project Summary
Overview
Intellectual Merit
Broader Impacts
Project Description
Results from Prior NSF Support
References
Biographical Sketch
Collaborators and Other Affiliations
Budget
Budget Justification
Data Management Plan
Current and Pending Support
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources
Postdoc Mentoring Plan
Letters of Support/Commitment
Collaboration Plans, Evaluation Plans, etc.

4. NSF Proposal & Award Process
Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley

5. Understanding EPSCoR
Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
Research Infrastructure Improvement Program:
Track-1 (RII Track-1) Awards. RII Track-1 awards provide up to $4 million per year for up to five years. They are intended to improve the research competitiveness of jurisdictions by improving their academic research infrastructure.
Track-2 Focused EPSCoR Collaborations (RII Track-2 FEC) awards provide up to $1 million per year for up to four years as collaborative awards between two EPSCoR jurisdictions or up to $1.5 million per year for up to four years to a consortia of three or more EPSCoR jurisdictions.
Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time): November 27, 2017
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time): January 26, 2018
Track-3 (RII Track-3) Awards. Piloted in FY 2013, RII Track-3 awards provide up to $750,000 for up to five years to support the strategic goal of broadening participation to improve future R&D competitiveness of EPSCoR jurisdictions.
Track-4 (RII Track-4) EPSCoR Research Fellows provides opportunities for non-tenured investigators to further develop their individual research potential through extended collaborative visits to the nation’s premier private, governmental, or academic research centers.

6. Understanding EPSCoR
Co-Funding of Disciplinary and Multidisciplinary Research: EPSCoR co-invests with NSF Directorates and Offices in the support of meritorious proposals from individual investigators, groups, and centers in EPSCoR jurisdictions that are submitted to the Foundation’s research and education programs, and crosscutting initiatives. These proposals have been merit reviewed and recommended for award, but could not be funded without the combined, leveraged support of EPSCoR and the Research and Education Directorates. Co-funding leverages EPSCoR investment and facilitates participation of EPSCoR scientists and engineers in Foundation-wide programs and initiatives. Click here to view co-funding eligibility. Click here to view the EPSCoR co-funding mechanism.

7. Read the call
CAREFULLY

8. Read and Re-read the Guidelines
Does your project help meet the goals of the call and the directorate?
Who has applied to this call in the past? Any in Montana?
How much money did they receive?
Are there any special requirements? Special review criteria?
Who do you need on your team? At MSU or other?
Do you have Results from Prior Support to include?

9. About Earth Sciences
The results of this research will create a better understanding of the Earth's changing environments, and the natural distribution of its mineral, water, biota, and energy resources and provide methods for predicting and mitigating the effects of geologic hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, landslides.

10. Integrated Earth Systems (IES)

11. Integrated Earth Systems (IES)

12. Project Summary

13. Project Summary Overview Intellectual Merit Broader Impact
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
Why is it important to solve this problem?
How will your proposal address the problem/gap?
What are you going to do?
How long will it take?
Intellectual Merit
How are you qualified to do the work?
What will happen if you succeed in solving the problem?
Why is your approach unique?
Broader Impact
What is the need that you are trying to address?
What is your goal?
What will you achieve?
How many and what types of people will you involve?

14. Why start and end with the Project Summary?
Before you submit
Outlines the proposal
Used to start the discussion with the Program Officer
Used to start discussions with collaborators
After you submit
It is the first thing your reviewers read
Sets the stage for the rest of the proposal

15. A Graphical Abstract is a single, concise, pictorial and visual summary of the main goals and outcomes of the proposal.
Michelle Flenniken, Plant Sciences & Plant Pathology
NSF CAREER Grant - Honey bee host-virus interactions: Investigating dsRNA mediated immune responses and virus specific determinants of transmission and pathogenesis

16. Talking to your PO

17. III. Should I Meet My Program Officer?
Why?
What do you intend to gain?
Social visits don’t help
If you do…
Prepare by reviewing portfolio of current grants
Provide advance written summary of your idea
e.g., NSF format Project Summary
Bring questions (e.g., fit, budget, review process)
Listen
Ask about what characteristics a successful proposal had in the last round
Remember that PD is not the panel!
Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley

18. How Could a Meeting Help?
Your program director can:
Give advice on proposal submission
Help you understand the review of a previous proposal
Point you to resources you can use to help write a better proposal next time
Give general guidance on good proposal writing
Program officers look forward to constructive meetings with PIs
Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley

19. Broader Impacts

20. Look at your Call
Computer Information Science & Engineering (CISE)
CISE is committed to enhancing the community's awareness of and overcoming barriers to Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC), and to providing information and resources to principal investigators (PIs) so that they can develop interest, skills, and activities in support of BPC at all levels of the CISE community (K-12, undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate). Indeed, CISE supports meaningful actions that address the longstanding underrepresentation of various populations including women, minorities (African Americans/Blacks, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, Native Pacific Islanders, and persons from economically disadvantaged backgrounds), and persons with disabilities, in the computing field.
Towards this end, with this solicitation, CISE is initiating a pilot BPC effort. Beginning with submissions to this solicitation, all PIs are strongly encouraged to include meaningful BPC plans in the Broader Impacts sections of their submitted proposals, and/or to begin preparing to include such plans in future proposal submissions.

21. Crafting your Broader Impacts Plan
How does your research make a positive difference in the world?
Why should anyone else care?
Slides courtesy of Suzi Taylor and Jamie Cornish

22. Slides courtesy of Suzi Taylor and Jamie Cornish

23. Slides courtesy of Suzi Taylor and Jamie Cornish
Things to Think About
What is the need that you are trying to address?
What would you like to impact?
What is your goal for your Broader Impacts?
How are you going to achieve them (objectives)?
How are you going to evaluate whether you were successful?
Slides courtesy of Suzi Taylor and Jamie Cornish

24. Slides courtesy of Suzi Taylor and Jamie Cornish
Slides courtesy of Suzi Taylor and Jamie Cornish

25. Understanding Reviewers

26. Participation (20 points)
Review Criteria
Successful Proposal
Adequate plan, team and budget
Alignment with funder goals
Novelty and soundness of the idea
NSF
What is the potential for the proposed activity to
Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
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?
How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
Are there adequate resources?
NIH
Overall Impact
Scientific Merit
Significance
Investigator(s)
Innovation
Approach
Environment
USDA
We will use the evaluation criteria below to review applications submitted in response to this RFA:
Relevance (20 points)
Quality (20 points)
Feasibility (40 points)
Participation (20 points)
DOE
Scientific and/or technical merit of the project;  for example, the influence that the results might have on the direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific fields of research; the likelihood of achieving valuable results; and the scientific innovation and originality indicated in the proposed research.
Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach; for example, the logic and feasibility of the research approaches and the soundness of the conduct of the research.
Competency of the personnel and adequacy of proposed resources; and for example, the background, past performance, and potential of the investigator(s); and the research environment and facilities for performing the research.
Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget.

27. Merit Review Principles
Given that NSF is the primary Federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.
Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

28. Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley
Review Criteria
Intellectual Merit
Technical aspects
Advancing knowledge and understanding within own or other fields
Potentially transformative concepts
Broader Impacts
Societal benefits
Significance beyond the Intellectual Merit
Outcome of the research (i.e. health impact, infrastructure)
Or from additional activities (i.e. education, dissemination)
Both Criteria are reviewed for:
Originality, creativity
Description of project plan with well-justified assessment
Qualification of teams
Adequacy of resources
Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley

29. How to Become a Reviewer
To become an NSF reviewer, send an to the NSF program officer(s) of the program(s) that fits your expertise.
Introduce yourself and identify your areas of expertise, and let them know that you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer.
It is most helpful if you also attach a 2-page CV with current contact information.

30. Types of Proposals

31. Idea Labs
CAREER
GOALI
RAPID
EAGER
RAISE
Dear Colleague Letter

32. Questions?

33. Ideas Lab Proposal
"Ideas Lab" is a type of proposal to support the development and implementation of creative and innovative project ideas that have the potential to transform research paradigms and/or solve intractable problems.
An Ideas Lab may be run independently, or in parallel, with the issuance of an NSF funding opportunity on the same topic.
These project ideas typically will be high-risk/high-impact, as they represent new and unproven ideas, approaches and/or technologies.

34. Separate workshop in February for the CAREER proposals
Due:
Separate workshop in February for the CAREER proposals
BIO, CISE, EHR
July 18, 2018
ENG
July 19, 2018
GEO, MPS, SBE
July 20, 2018

35. GOALI supports three types of projects:
Industry and university engage in a research collaboration
Faculty and students conduct research in an industry setting
Industry scientists conduct research in a university setting

36. GOALI projects must be true collaborations
Proposal submitted by the university
Industry listed as co-PI
Both the university and industry sides must show they are making some investment in the project, and the effort must be research-related (GOALI does not fund general training)

37. Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID)
The RAPID funding mechanism is for projects having a severe urgency with regard to availability of, or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events.
Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley

38. Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley
RAPID
Requests may be for up to $200K and for one year of duration
The project description is expected to be brief; no more than five pages
Only internal merit review is required for RAPID proposals. Under rare circumstances, Program Officers may elect to obtain external reviews. If external merit review is to be used, then the PI will be informed
Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley

39. EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER)
The EAGER funding mechanism may be used to support exploratory work in its early stages on untested, but potentially transformative, research ideas or approaches.
This work is considered especially "high risk-high payoff" because it involves radically different approaches, applies new expertise, or engages novel disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspectives.
Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley

40. Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley
EAGER
Requests may be for up to $300K and for two years of duration
Only internal merit review is required. Under rare circumstances, Program Officers may elect to obtain external reviews. If external merit review is to be used, then the PI will be informed
No-cost extensions, and requests for supplemental funding may be requested but are subject to full external merit review
Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley

41. Research Advanced by Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering (RAISE)
RAISE is a type of proposal that may be used to support bold, interdisciplinary projects whose:
Scientific advances lie in great part outside the scope of a single program or discipline, such that substantial funding support from more than one program or discipline is necessary.
Lines of research promise transformational advances.
Prospective discoveries reside at the interfaces of disciplinary boundaries that may not be recognized through traditional review or co-review.

42. RAISE
documentation from at least two NSF Program Officers confirming approval to submit a proposal must be uploaded under “RAISE – Program Officer Concurrence s” in the Supplementary Documentation section of FastLane.
Requests may be for up to $1,000,000 and up to five years in duration. The award size and duration will be consistent with the project scope.

43. Dear Colleague Letters
Slides courtesy of Laura Stanley

44. NSF Fastlane

45. Links to More Info
NSF Review Process:
Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG);