Engineering Design (ENG/DES)

Engineering Design (ENG/DES) is sponsored by National Science Foundation (NSF). Funds creative design research, including biomimicry-inspired structural engineering for innovative products and systems. This program should be reviewed carefully against your organization's mission, staffing capacity, timeline, and compliance readiness before you commit resources to a full application. Strong submissions usually translate sponsor priorities into concrete objectives, clear implementation milestones, and measurable public benefit.

For planning purposes, treat rolling deadlines or periodic funding windows as your working submission target unless the sponsor publishes an updated notice. A competitive project plan should include a documented need statement, implementation approach, evaluation framework, risk controls, and a realistic budget narrative. Even when a grant allows broad program design, reviewers still expect credible evidence that the proposed work can be executed within the grant period and with appropriate accountability.

Current published award information indicates $200,000 - $800,000 Organizations should verify the final funding range, matching requirements, and allowability rules directly in the official opportunity materials before preparing a budget. Finance and program teams should align early so direct costs, indirect costs, staffing assumptions, procurement timelines, and reporting obligations all remain consistent throughout drafting and post-award administration.

Eligibility guidance for this opportunity is: U.S. universities, industry-university partnerships If your organization has partnerships, subrecipients, or collaborators, define responsibilities and compliance ownership before submission. Reviewers often look for implementation credibility, so letters of commitment, prior performance evidence, and a clear governance model can materially strengthen the application narrative and reduce concerns about delivery risk.

A practical approach is to begin with a focused readiness review, then build a workback schedule from the sponsor deadline. Confirm required attachments, registration dependencies, and internal approval checkpoints early. This reduces last-minute issues and improves submission quality. For the most accurate requirements, always rely on the official notice and primary source links associated with Engineering Design (ENG/DES).

NSF 21-574: Engineering Research Initiation (ERI) | NSF - U. S. National Science Foundation An official website of the United States government Official websites use .

gov A . gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .

gov websites use HTTPS. or https:// means you've safely connected to the . gov website.

Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Research Experiences for Undergraduates For Early-Career Researchers Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) How We Make Funding Decisions Request a Change to Your Award Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) NSF Public Access Repository Who to Contact With Questions Facilities and Infrastructure Updates on NSF Priorities Our Directorates & Offices Biological Sciences (BIO) Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE) Integrative Activities (OIA) International Science & Engineering (OISE) Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MPS) Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE) Technology, Innovation & Partnerships (TIP) National Center for Science & Engineering Statistics (NCSES) National Science Board (NSB) Engineering Research Initiation (ERI) Archived funding opportunity This solicitation is archived.

NSF 21-574: Engineering Research Initiation (ERI) Download the solicitation (PDF, 0.

8mb) National Science Foundation Directorate for Engineering Division of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport Systems Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation Engineering Education and Centers Industrial Innovation and Partnerships Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p. m.

submitter's local time): Important Information And Revision Notes Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) ( NSF 20-1 ), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after June 1, 2020.

Summary Of Program Requirements Engineering Research Initiation (ERI) The National Science Foundation (NSF) Directorate for Engineering (ENG) seeks to build engineering research capacity across the nation by investing in new academic investigators who have yet to receive research funding from Federal Agencies.

The Engineering Research Initiation (ERI) program aims to support new investigators as they initiate their research programs and advance in their careers as researchers, educators, and innovators.

This funding opportunity also aims to broaden the base of investigators involved in engineering research and therefore is limited to investigators that are not affiliated with “very high research activity” R1 institutions (according to the Carnegie Classification https://carnegieclassifications. iu. edu/ ).

Cognizant Program Officer(s): Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact. Lawrence S.

Goldberg, ECCS, Shahab Shojaei-Zadeh, CBET, Jesus V. Soriano Molla, IIP, Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): Anticipated Type of Award: Estimated Number of Awards: The number of awards will depend on the availability of funds and the quality of the proposals. The awards will be two-years in duration.

Anticipated Funding Amount: The ERI award, including indirect costs, must not exceed $200,000 for a duration of 24 months. The award funds may be used for research expenses, graduate and/or undergraduate student support and Principal Investigator (PI) salary and may include modest equipment cost necessary for the successful conduct of the proposed research.

ERI awards are eligible for supplemental funding as described in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG).

Who May Submit Proposals: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) not currently classified as a Doctoral University with “Very High Research Activity” (R1 institutions) according to the 2018 Carnegie Classification update: https://carnegieclassifications. iu. edu/ .

These include two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. PIs must hold a doctoral degree in a field supported by NSF. Postdoctoral researchers are not eligible to submit an ERI proposal.

Additional PI eligibility conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: An individual may serve as PI on only one ERI proposal in response to this solicitation. Only one PI per proposal is allowed; Co-Principal Investigators (Co-PI) and senior personnel are not permitted. Collaborative proposals are not permitted.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions A. Proposal Preparation Instructions Letters of Intent: Not required Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.

nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ. jsp?

ods_key=pappg . Full Proposals submitted via Research. gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply.

The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www. nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ.

jsp? ods_key=pappg . Full Proposals submitted via Grants.

gov: NSF Grants. gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants. gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.

gov Application Guide is available on the Grants. gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www. nsf.

gov/publications/pub_summ. jsp? ods_key=grantsgovguide ).

Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Other Budgetary Limitations: Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p. m.

submitter's local time): Proposal Review Information Criteria National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information Standard NSF award conditions apply. Standard NSF reporting requirements apply. Summary of Program Requirements Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions Proposal Preparation Instructions FastLane/Research.

gov/Grants. gov Requirements NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures Merit Review Principles and Criteria Review and Selection Process Award Administration Information Notification of the Award NSF investments in engineering research and education are critical building blocks for the nation's future economic growth and prosperity.

Engineering breakthroughs have addressed national challenges, enriched our understanding of natural systems, fostered new technologies, fortified the nation's infrastructure, and introduced the exciting possibilities of engineering to the next generation.

The Directorate for Engineering (ENG) supports the development of a diverse engineering workforce versed in the forefronts of engineering research and promotes the success of new academic investigators in their careers as researchers, educators, and innovators.

The goal of the ERI program is to broaden the base of scientists and engineers in academia who dedicate their careers to advancing engineering research and education in societally important fields relevant to ENG. The ERI program is part of the Directorate for Engineering capacity-building strategy to direct its investments in engineering research across the nation.

This solicitation provides support for investigators who have yet to receive research funding from Federal Agencies to initiate their engineering research programs and to be in a more competitive position for future proposal submissions. Eligibility to apply to this program is limited to non-R1 Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US.

NSF encourages submission by new investigators in engineering fields from non-PhD awarding institutions, including community colleges.

NSF strongly encourages participation in this ERI program by PIs from all underrepresented groups in engineering, including gender identity and expression, race and ethnicity (Blacks and African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native Pacific Islanders), disability, LGBTQ, first generation college and socio-economic status.

New investigators who are at Minority-Serving Institutions are especially encouraged to apply. Proposers may submit proposals only in engineering research areas supported by programs within the Divisions of the Directorate for Engineering. The list of ERI-eligible ENG programs is provided in Section V.

A, Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions. Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant Estimated Number of Awards: 55 Anticipated Funding Amount: $11,000,000 The ERI award, including indirect costs, must not exceed $200,000 for a duration of 24 months.

The award funds may be used for research expenses, graduate and/or undergraduate student support and Principal Investigator (PI) salary and may include modest equipment cost necessary for the successful conduct of the proposed research. ERI awards are eligible for supplemental funding as described in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG).

The number of awards will depend on the availability of funds and the quality of the proposals. IV.

Eligibility Information Who May Submit Proposals: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) not currently classified as a Doctoral University with “Very High Research Activity” (R1 institutions) according to the 2018 Carnegie Classification update: https://carnegieclassifications. iu. edu/ .

These include two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. PIs must hold a doctoral degree in a field supported by NSF. Postdoctoral researchers are not eligible to submit an ERI proposal.

Additional PI eligibility conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: An individual may serve as PI on only one ERI proposal in response to this solicitation. Only one PI per proposal is allowed; Co-Principal Investigators (Co-PI) and senior personnel are not permitted. Collaborative proposals are not permitted.

Additional Eligibility Info: At the time of the proposal submission deadline, the PI may not have been a PI or Co-PI on any current or prior awarded NSF research grant (including subaward) or any other Federal Agency research support with the following exceptions: Conference or travel awards; Doctoral dissertation improvement grants; Postdoctoral research fellowship awards; A Graduate Research Fellowship or similar fellowship award; REU or RET site awards; and PIs must hold a doctoral degree in a field supported by NSF.

Postdoctoral researchers are not eligible to submit an ERI proposal. This solicitation does not permit submission of collaborative proposals, including proposals with subawards, or collaborative proposals from multiple organizations (See PAPPG Chapter II. D.

3). PIs are strongly encouraged to contact the cognizant Program Officers listed in the solicitation before submitting proposals. Proposals must meet all the eligibility conditions or will be Returned Without Review (RWR).

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions A. Proposal Preparation Instructions Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via FastLane, Research.

gov, or Grants. gov. Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG).

The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www. nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ.

jsp? ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.

gov . Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines.

Failure to submit this information may delay processing. Full Proposals submitted via Research. gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG).

The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www. nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ.

jsp? ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.

gov . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number. Full proposals submitted via Grants.

gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants. gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants. gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.

gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants. gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.

gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www. nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ.

jsp? ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.

gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants. gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.

gov . See PAPPG Chapter II. C.

2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions. Program Solicitation Number: FastLane users: Select the ERI program solicitation number shown at the beginning of this solicitation from the drop-down menu.

Research. gov Users: Select the ERI program solicitation number in Step 1 of the Prepare New Proposal Wizard (Funding Opportunity). Grants.

gov users: The program solicitation will be pre-populated by Grants. gov on the NSF Grant Application Cover Page. ENG Unit of Consideration: Select at least one specific program from the drop-down list in FastLane as the NSF program(s) to consider the proposal.

Research. gov users: Select at least one specific program in Step 2 of the Prepare New Proposal Wizard (Where to Apply). Grants.

gov users should refer to Section VI. 1. 2.

of the NSF Grants. gov Application Guide for specific instructions on how to designate the NSF Unit of Consideration. Proposers to the RFE and BPE programs should select cognizant PO Dana Denick under ECCS Division name.

For assistance in determining which program(s) to choose, refer to the list of ERI-eligible ENG Programs below: Process Systems, Reaction Engineering, and Molecular Thermodynamics Cellular and Biochemical Engineering Disability and Rehabilitation Engineering Engineering of Biomedical Systems Environmental Engineering Environmental Sustainability Combustion and Fire Systems Particulate and Multiphase Processes Thermal Transport Processes Advanced Manufacturing (AM) Biomechanics and Mechanobiology (BMMB) Civil Infrastructure Systems (CIS) Dynamics, Control and Systems Diagnostics (DCSD) Engineering for Civil Infrastructure (ECI) Engineering Design and System Engineering (EDSE) Foundational Research in Robotics (Robotics) Humans, Disasters, and the Built Environment (HDBE) Mechanics of Materials and Structures (MOMS) Mind, Machine and Motor Nexus (M3X) Operations Engineering (OE) Electronics, Photonics and Magnetic Devices (EPMD) Communications, Circuits, and Sensing-Systems (CCSS) Energy, Power, Control, and Networks (EPCN) Broadening Participation in Engineering (BPE) Research in the Formation of Engineers (RFE) Partnerships for Innovation (PFI) Project Title: The Project Title must begin with "ERI:" and follow with an informative title.

Co-PIs : No co-PIs are permitted on the Cover Sheet. Project Summary (1-page limit): The Project Summary should include a brief overview of the project, a summary of the Intellectual Merit of the proposed activities, with their potential to advancing knowledge, and a summary of the Broader Impacts of the proposed activities, with their potential to benefiting society.

Project Description (10-page limit): The Project Description should provide a well-argued and specific proposal for the research activities that, over the course of a two-year period, will provide the foundation for a competitive, long-term research program at the forefront of engineering research.

PIs should pay careful attention to the Solicitation-specific Review Criteria listed in this solicitation and be sure to address these criteria in the Project Description. Reviewers will be asked to consider the potential of the research initiation activities to serve as the basis for future competitive research proposals, consistent with the research goals of the PI.

The Project Description should contain the following and must have explicit headings in the project description for these sections: Research Goals : provide a brief description of the PI’s overall research goals.

Research Project: provide a clear outline of the general plan of work, including the research questions or hypotheses, the broad design of activities to be undertaken, and, where appropriate, a clear description of experimental methods and procedures. The proposal should include the motivation for the research and a discussion of the novelty of the work in the context of the literature.

The project description should also discuss mechanisms and plans for assessing success of the proposed activities. Broader Impacts: provide a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities.

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to the project, such as education activities.

Supplementary documents are limited to the specific types of documents listed in the PAPPG, with the following exception: Department Chair/Dean’s Letter (required): Proposals must include a letter from an appropriate Department Chair or Dean endorsing the proposed research plan.

This letter should also describe how the PI's proposed ERI activities are aligned with the goals of the department or organization and how the department or organization is committed to the professional development of the PI. The letter must also include language certifying that the PI has not received research funding from Federal agencies at the time of submission. See PAPPG Chapter II.

C. 2. j for the full policy on supplementary documents.

Collaborators and Other Affiliations Information: Proposers should follow the guidance specified in Chapter II. C. 1.

e of the NSF PAPPG. Submitters using Grants. gov may upload this document as a PDF.

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p. m.

submitter's local time): D. FastLane/Research. gov/Grants.

gov Requirements For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane or Research. gov: To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www. fastlane.

nsf. gov/a1/newstan. htm .

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research. gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www. research.

gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop? _nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission. html .

For FastLane or Research. gov user support, call the FastLane and Research. gov Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.

gov or rgov@nsf. gov . The FastLane and Research.

gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane and Research. gov systems. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants. gov: Before using Grants. gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile.

Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants. gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.

gov is available on the Grants. gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www. grants.

gov/web/grants/applicants. html . In addition, the NSF Grants.

gov Application Guide (see link in Section V. A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants. gov.

For Grants. gov user support, contact the Grants. gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.

gov . The Grants. gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.

gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation. Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.

gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants. gov.

The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing. Proposers that submitted via FastLane or Research. gov may use Research.

gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants. gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.

gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research. gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review.

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 either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with 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. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards.

A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1. A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www. nsf.

gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ . Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Building the Future: Investing in Discovery and Innovation - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 – 2022 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part.

NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions.

These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U. S. technology-based economy.

NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the 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. A.

Merit Review Principles and Criteria The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education.

To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes."

NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects. 1. Merit Review Principles These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards.

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. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.

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. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful.

Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project. 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. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. The two merit review criteria are listed below.

Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.

C. 2. d(i).

contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II. C.

2. d(i), prior to the review of a proposal. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful.

These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions.

To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria: Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria: 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 available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities? Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.

NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes.

Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate. Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria In what ways will the proposed research initiation activities provide the foundation for a competitive, long-term research program at the forefront of engineering research?

In what ways will the proposed engineering research initiation activities enhance the PI’s ability to submit competitive research proposals in the future? B. Review and Selection Process Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

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 strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months.

Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement.

Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer.

A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk. Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are