Computer and Information Science and Engineering
Published on AidPage by IDILOGIC
on Jun 24, 2005
Purpose of this program:
To support research, infrastructure investments, and education in the computer science, computer engineering, information science, networking, and computational science disciplines and to supports shared cyber infrastructure that enables cyber-science across the full range of NSF-supported science and engineering disciplines
Possible uses and use restrictions...
Funds may be used to pay costs of conducting research, and obtaining access to advanced computing and networking capabilities, salaries and wages, equipment and supplies, travel, publication costs, other direct costs, and indirect costs. This program does not provide support for fellowships, scholarships, product development or marketing, or proof-of-concept experimentation.
Who is eligible to apply...
Public and private colleges and universities; nonprofit institutions; profit-making organizations, including small businesses; and State, and local government agencies are eligible. The greatest percentage of support goes to academic institutions.
The proposal 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 for educational institutions and A-122 for nonprofit organizations. This program is excluded from coverage under OMB Circular No. A-87.
Note:This is a brief description of the credentials or documentation required prior to, or along with, an application for assistance.
About this section:
This section indicates who can apply to the Federal government for assistance and the criteria the potential applicant must satisfy.
For example, individuals may be eligible for research grants, and the criteria to be satisfied may be that they have a professional or scientific degree,
3 years of research experience, and be a citizen of the United States. Universities, medical schools, hospitals, or State and local governments may also be eligible.
Where State governments are eligible, the type of State agency will be indicated (State welfare agency or State agency on aging) and the criteria that they
Certain federal programs (e.g., the Pell Grant program which provides grants to students) involve intermediate levels of application processing, i.e., applications
are transmitted through colleges or universities that are neither the direct applicant nor the ultimate beneficiary. For these programs,
the criteria that the intermediaries must satisfy are also indicated, along with intermediaries who are not eligible.
How to apply...
Proposals must be submitted electronically via FastLane to the Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate and should follow the general instructions and guidelines in The "Grant Proposal Guide," NSF 04-2. All proposals are acknowledged. This program is subject to the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-110 for nonprofit organizations. This program is excluded from coverage under OMB Circular No. A-102.
Note: Each program will indicate whether applications are to be submitted to the Federal headquarters, regional or local office, or to a State or local government office.
NSF Staff members review and evaluate all proposals, with the advice and assistance of scientists and engineers who are specialists in the field covered by the proposal, of prospective users of research results when appropriate, and of specialists in other Federal agencies.
Note: Grant payments may be made by a letter of credit, advance by Treasury check, or reimbursement by Treasury check.
Awards may be made by the headquarters office directly to the applicant, an agency field office, a regional office,
or by an authorized county office. The assistance may pass through the initial applicant for further distribution by
intermediate level applicants to groups or individuals in the private sector.
Deadlines and process...
Deadlines and target dates are published in the NSF bulletin, program announcements and on NSF World Wide Web site URL: http://www.cise.nsf.gov/.
When available, this section indicates the deadlines for applications to the funding agency which will
be stated in terms of the date(s) or between what dates the application should be received.
When not available, applicants should contact the funding agency for deadline information.
Range of Approval/Disapproval Time
Approximately 6 months or less, except in special instances.
None required, except in specific cases, but preliminary discussions with relevant National Science Foundation program officers, by telephone or mail, are encouraged. This program is excluded from coverage under E.O. 12372.
This section indicates whether any prior coordination or approval is required with governmental or nongovernmental units
prior to the submission of a formal application to the federal funding agency.
The Principal Investigator may request, in writing, that the National Science Foundation reconsider its action in declining any proposal application, renewal application, or continuing application.
In some cases, there are no provisions for appeal. Where applicable, this section discusses appeal procedures or allowable rework time for resubmission
of applications to be processed by the funding agency. Appeal procedures vary with individual programs and are either listed in this section or
applicants are referred to appeal procedures documented in the relevant Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Standard Grants, in which the National Science Foundation agrees to support a specified level of effort for a specified period of time, are awarded with no statement of NSF intent to provide additional future support. Proposals for renewal of a Standard Grant compete with all other pending proposals.
In some instances, renewal procedures may be the same as for the application procedure, e.g., for projects of a non-continuing nature renewals will be treated as new, competing applications; for projects of an ongoing nature, renewals may be given annually.
Who can benefit...
Public and private colleges and universities; nonprofit institutions; profit-making organizations, including small businesses, and State, and local governments.
About this section:
This section lists the ultimate beneficiaries of a program, the criteria they must satisfy and who specifically is not eligible. The applicant and beneficiary will generally be the same for programs that provide assistance directly from a Federal agency. However, financial assistance that passes through State or local governments will have different applicants and beneficiaries since the assistance is transmitted to private sector beneficiaries who are not obligated to request or apply for the assistance.
What types of assistance...
The funding, for fixed or known periods, of specific projects. Project grants can include fellowships, scholarships, research grants, training grants, traineeships, experimental and demonstration grants, evaluation grants, planning grants, technical assistance grants, survey grants, and construction grants.
How much financial aid...
Range and Average of Financial Assistance
$1,000 to $35,000,000; $160,000.
This section lists the representative range (smallest to largest) of the amount of financial assistance available. These figures are based upon funds awarded in the past fiscal year and the current fiscal year to date. Also indicated is an approximate average amount of awards which were made in the past and current fiscal years.
(Grants) FY 03 $589,290,000; FY 04 est $604,650,000; and FY 05 est $618,050,000.
The dollar amounts listed in this section represent obligations for the past fiscal year (PY), estimates for the current fiscal year (CY), and estimates for the budget fiscal year (BY) as reported by the Federal agencies. Obligations for non-financial assistance programs indicate the administrative expenses involved in the operation of a program.
Note: This 11-digit budget account identification code represents the account which funds a particular program.
This code should be consistent with the code given for the program area as specified in Appendix III of the Budget of the United States Government.
Examples of funded projects...
1) Daniel Marcu of the University of Southern California, through his PDP project, has made publicly available a sentence-level discourse parser that uses a maximum entropy approach (http://www.isi.edu/licensed-sw/spade/). The parser has been downloaded and used by more than 60 students, academics, researchers, and language engineers from around the world. For example, Educational Testing Services is using the discourse parser in order to improve an application for test developers that automatically selects candidate texts that can be used for writing reading comprehension items. 2) Kevin Skadron, of the University of Virginia is using control-theory techniques and thermal / power modeling for dynamically managing temperature and power in microprocessors. On-chip heating is threatening operating speeds and reliability. The microarchitecture has an important role to play in regulating this heat, because the heat is typically localized at a granularity that approximately matches the granularity at which the microarchitecture can adapt at runtime. The project investigate microarchitectural techniques for regulating on-chip operating temperatures (like dynamic voltage scaling), simulation techniques for efficiently modeling heat transport in chips in a way that architects can use in these investigations, and formal feedback-control techniques for dynamically regulating adaptive microarchitectural mechanisms. Results of the project can be reviewed at http://lava.cs.virginia.edu/HotSpot. 3) Kent Seamons at Brigham Young University is developing methods for automated trust negotiation in open systems. Exchange of attribute credentials is a means to establish mutual trust between strangers wishing to share resources or conduct business transactions. Automated Trust Negotiation (ATN) is an approach to regulate the exchange of sensitive information during this process. It treats credentials as potentially sensitive resources, the access to which is under policy control. This project showed that many prior methods of ATN have serious security holes. Tom address these, it introduced a formal framework for ATN that give precise, usable, and intuitive definitions of correct enforcement of policies. The chief safety notion captures the intuitive security goals that are natural under both possibilistic and probabilistic analysis. The researchers proved that two highly diverse approaches to ATN from the literature meet the safety requirements, thus validating the safety of those approaches as well as the usability of the definition. 4) The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, part of NSF's Terascale Computing Effort, is providing advanced computing facilities that enable research across a range of science and engineering frontiers. In 2003, the following results were reported. Using 2048 processors of the LeMieux computer at PSC, researchers modeled the Northridge, CA earthquake at 2 cycles per second, nearly double the rate of previous simulations; this is beginning to reveal deep geological features based on surface seismic observations. John Joannopoulos and colleagues at MIT have used PSC to study polarized light in photonic crystals. Tiny, honeycomb-like layers of silicon, photonic crystals have unprecedented ability to trap, guide and control light. Their promise is to manipulate photons, the tiniest lumps of energy in light, with the same precision that semiconductors make possible with electrons. The result will be networks that move data at trillions of bits per second, a thousand times faster than today. For computing, along with a radical leap in processing speed, photonics should shrink by a thousand-fold the size and power needs of circuitry. It's a rapidly emerging technology, with likely impacts in many fields including medical and chemical scanning and sensing devices. Joannopoulos' team set out to demonstrate that, by joining two
About this section
This section indicates the different types of projects which have been funded in the past. Only projects funded under Project Grants or Direct Payments for Specified Use should be listed here. The examples give potential applicants an idea of the types of projects that may be accepted for funding. The agency should list at least five examples of the most recently funded projects.
In fiscal year 2003, 6,600 proposals were received and 2,270 awards made. In fiscal year 2004, approximately 6,700 proposals will be received and about 2,300 awards will be made. In fiscal year 2005, approximately 6,000 proposals will be received and about 2,400 awards will be made.
Criteria for selecting proposals...
The National Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating proposals at its meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB 97-72). All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. On July 8, 2002, the NSF Director issued Important Notice 127, Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements Related to the Broader Impacts Criterion. This Important Notice reinforces the importance of addressing both criteria in the preparation and review of all proposals submitted to NSF. NSF continues to strengthen its internal processes to ensure that both of the merit review criteria are addressed when making funding decisions. In an effort to increase compliance with these requirements, the January 2002 issuance of the GPG incorporated revised proposal preparation guidelines relating to the development of the Project Summary and Project Description. Chapter II of the GPG specifies that Principal Investigators (PIs) must address both merit review criteria in separate statements within the one-page Project Summary. This chapter also reiterates that broader impacts resulting from the proposed project must be addressed in the Project Description and described as an integral part of the narrative. Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria within the Project Summary. It is believed that these changes to NSF proposal preparation and processing guidelines will more clearly articulate the importance of broader impacts to NSF-funded projects. The two National Science Board approved merit review criteria are listed below (see the Grant Proposal Guide Chapter III.A for further information). 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 proposal being considered and for which he/she is qualified to make judgements. What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? 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.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources? What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? 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
Length and Time Phasing of Assistance
Normally 6 months to 3 years; occasionally longer.
Formula and Matching Requirements
The Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (Chapter II) and the Grant Policy Manual (Sec. 330) provide information on the general NSF policy on cost-sharing.
A formula may be based on population, per capita income, and other statistical factors. Applicants are informed whether there are any matching requirements to be met when participating in the cost of a project. In general, the matching share represents that portion of the project costs not borne by the Federal government. Attachment F of OMB Circular No. A-102 (Office of Management and Budget) sets forth the criteria and procedures for the evaluation of matching share requirements which may be cash or in-kind contributions made by State and local governments or other agencies, institutions, private organizations, or individuals to satisfy matching requirements of Federal grants or loans.
Cash contributions represent the grantees' cash outlay, including the outlay of money contributed to the grantee by other public agencies, institutions, private organizations, or individuals. When authorized by Federal regulation, Federal funds received from other grants may be considered as the grantees' cash contribution.
In-kind contributions represent the value of noncash contributions provided by the grantee, other public agencies and institutions, private organizations or individuals. In-kind contributions may consist of charges for real property and equipment, and value of goods and services directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to the grant program. When authorized by Federal legislation, property purchased with Federal funds may be considered as grantees' in-kind contribution.
Maintenance of effort (MOE) is a requirement contained in certain legislation, regulations, or administrative policies stating that a grantee must maintain a specified level of financial effort in a specific area in order to receive Federal grant funds, and that the Federal grant funds may be used only to supplement, not supplant, the level of grantee funds.
Post assistance requirements...
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the PI must submit an annual project report to the cognizant program office at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period. Within 90 days after the expiration of a grant, the PI is required to submit a final project report. Quarterly Federal Cash Transaction Reports are required. Other reporting requirements may be imposed via the grant instrument.
This section indicates whether program reports, expenditure reports, cash reports or performance monitoring are required by the Federal funding agency, and specifies at what time intervals (monthly, annually, etc.) this must be accomplished.
In accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-133 (Revised, June 27, 2003), "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations," nonfederal entities that expend financial assistance of $300,000 or more in Federal awards will have a single or a program-specific audit conducted for that year. Nonfederal entities that expend less than $300,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from Federal audit requirements for that year, except as noted in Circular No. A-133.
This section discusses audits required by the Federal agency.
The procedures and requirements for State and local governments and nonprofit entities are set forth in OMB Circular No. A-133.
These requirements pertain to awards made within the respective State's fiscal year - not the Federal fiscal year,
as some State and local governments may use the calendar year or other variation of time span designated as the fiscal year period,
rather than that commonly known as the Federal fiscal year (from October 1st through September 30th).
Grantees are expected to maintain separate records for each grant to ensure that funds are used for the general purpose for which each grant was made. Records are subject to inspection during the life of the grant and for 3 years thereafter.
This section indicates the record retention requirements and the type of records the Federal agency may require.
Not included are the normally imposed requirements of the General Accounting Office.
For programs falling under the purview of OMB Circular No. A-102, record retention is set forth in Attachment C.
For other programs, record retention is governed by the funding agency's requirements.
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, Public Law 108-199, 42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.
This section lists the legal authority upon which a program is based (acts, amendments to acts, Public Law numbers, titles, sections, Statute Codes, citations to the U.S. Code, Executive Orders, Presidential Reorganization Plans, and Memoranda from an agency head).
Regulations, Guidelines, And Literature
48 CFR Chapter 25: 45 CFR Chapter VI; "NSF Guide to Programs, fiscal year 2004," NSF 04-009 (http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf04009); and "Grant Proposal Guide," NSF 04-2 (http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf042).