Engineering Research Centers

Engineering Research Centers is sponsored by National Science Foundation. Supports major research centers focused on engineering innovations including design and advanced manufacturing at universities. Centers involve interdisciplinary teams and education components. 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 $1,000,000 - $75,000,000 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: Universities and consortia of higher education institutions 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 Research Centers.

NSF 24-576: Gen-4 Engineering Research Centers (ERC) | 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) Gen-4 Engineering Research Centers (ERC) Archived funding opportunity This solicitation is archived.

NSF 24-576: Gen-4 Engineering Research Centers Convergent Research and Innovation through Inclusive Partnerships and Workforce Development To save a PDF of this solicitation, select Print to PDF in your browser's print options. National Science Foundation Directorate for Engineering Engineering Education and Centers Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p. m.

submitting organization's local time): Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p. m. submitting organization's local time): Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.

m. submitting organization's local time): Important Information And Revision Notes This solicitation encourages proposals addressing a broad spectrum of engineering topics, including but not limited to advanced manufacturing, advanced wireless, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, microelectronics and semiconductors, net-zero technologies, quantum engineering, and systems engineering for healthcare.

This solicitation is updated to clarify the definition of underrepresented students in STEM and to welcome proposal submissions that broaden geographic and demographic participation. More details are provided in Section IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION .

Cost Sharing: Cost sharing is required. The formula for required cost sharing is described in the full text of this solicitation. Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted.

The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements Gen-4 Engineering Research Centers (ERC) Convergent Research and Innovation through Inclusive Partnerships and Workforce Development Founded in 1984, the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program brings technology-based industry and universities together in an effort to strengthen the competitive position of American industry in the global marketplace.

These partnerships are expected to establish cross-disciplinary centers focused on advancing fundamental engineering knowledge and engineered systems technology while exposing students to the integrative aspects of engineered systems and industrial practice.

The goal of the ERC program has traditionally been to integrate engineering research and education with technological innovation to transform and improve national prosperity, health, and security. Building upon this tradition, NSF is interested in supporting ERCs to develop and advance engineered systems, which if successful, will have a high Societal Impact.

The ERC program supports convergent research (CR) that will lead to strong societal impact. Each ERC has interacting foundational components that go beyond the research project, including engineering workforce development (EWD) at all participant stages, where all participants gain mutual benefit, and value creation within an innovation ecosystem (IE) that will outlast the lifetime of the ERC.

These foundational elements are integrated throughout ERC activities and in alignment with the Center's vision and targeted societal impact. The overall impact of the ERC program is expected within the Engineering Community, the Scientific Enterprise, and Society. 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. Sandra Cruz-Pol, telephone: (703) 292-2928, email: nsferc@nsf. gov Dana L.

Denick, telephone: (703) 292-8866, email: nsferc@nsf. gov Randy Duran, telephone: (703) 292-5326, email: nsferc@nsf. gov Nadia A.

El-Masry, telephone: (703) 292-4975, email: nsferc@nsf. gov Jesus V. Soriano Molla, telephone: (703) 292-7798, email: jsoriano@nsf.

gov Lan Wang, telephone: (703) 292-5098, email: nsferc@nsf. gov Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): Anticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement Estimated Number of Awards: 1 to 4 Up to 4 depending on the quality of the proposals and the availability of funds.

ERCs are generally funded for ten years, with an initial award for the first five years and second award based on performance and review of a renewal proposal. This solicitation seeks to make awards for the first five years for new ERCs. Anticipated Funding Amount: $26,000,000 to $104,000,000 See Section III of this solicitation for additional information about the allowable maximum annual budget for years one through five.

NSF expects to make the ERC awards in the summer of 2026. The budget distribution among the lead and core partners should be appropriate for the scope of work and activities planned for each foundational component. Note that ERCs will not be granted no-cost extensions (NCE).

NSF is currently in negotiations with other government agencies to form partnerships in support of ERC awards. These partnerships have the potential to expand the total number of awards. This is contingent upon realization of these partnerships, and budgets provided to these organizations by Congress for FY 2026 and 2027.

Who May Submit Proposals: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Only U. S. Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), also referred to in this solicitation as universities and academic institutions, accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, that grant engineering degrees at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral engineering level may submit proposals as the lead university.

The Lead university submits the proposal, and the award is made to the lead university. Support is provided to core partner universities and any affiliated faculty from other partner institutions through subawards. NSF welcomes proposal submissions that broaden geographic and demographic participation.

Proposals from STEM-minority-serving institutions (STEM-MSI*), non-R1 schools, emerging research institutions, and IHEs in EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions, as lead or core partners, as well as IHEs that primarily serve populations of students with disabilities or women in engineering interested in STEM, are encouraged.

Invited full proposals must meet all the following organizational requirements or they will be returned without review: The Lead must be an Institution of Higher Education per the Carnegie Foundational Attribute: https://carnegieclassifications. acenet. edu/ A proposed ERC must be multi-institutional, with a lead university and additional domestic university core partners.

There is no maximum number of partner institutions. To qualify as a core partner institution, there must be financial support for a minimum of three faculty participating in the ERC along with financial support for a minimum of three students (Postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students). The lead or at least one of the core partner universities must be a STEM-MSI* university.

Commitments from lead and core partner universities for cost sharing must be in place. *For this solicitation STEM-MSI is defined by the Department of Education as institutions of higher education enrolling populations with significant percentages of undergraduate minority students, or that serve certain populations of minority students under various programs created by Congress.

Eligibility may be determined by reference to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) of the US Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics ( https://nces. ed. gov/ipeds/ ).

The Lead PI must be a faculty member at the Lead university. Non-Lead PIs are the co-PIs listed on the Cover Sheet after the Lead PI and may be from institutions other than the lead university. In order to provide more flexibility for the Center's management, the Lead PI and the ERC Director are not required to be the same person, however, both must be affiliated with the lead institution.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: If an institution has two active ERC awards, it does not qualify to submit an ERC preliminary proposal as a lead institution. There are no other restrictions or limits on the number of preliminary proposals submitted by a Lead institution. Full Proposals may be submitted only by invitation and only by the lead institution designated in the preliminary proposal.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: There are no restrictions or limits. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions A. Proposal Preparation Instructions Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required.

Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Preliminary Proposals: Submission of Preliminary Proposals is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

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: Cost Sharing is required.

Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p. m. submitting organization's local time): Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.

m. submitting organization's local time): Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p. m.

submitting organization'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 Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Additional reporting requirements apply.

Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Summary of Program Requirements Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions Proposal Preparation Instructions 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 The National Science Foundation (NSF) created the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program in 1984 to bring technology-based industry and universities together in an effort to strengthen the competitive position of American industry in the global marketplace.

These partnerships established cross-disciplinary centers focused on advancing fundamental engineering knowledge and engineered systems technology while exposing students to the integrative aspects of engineered systems and industrial practice.

As a result, ERCs have produced a wide range of new fundamental knowledge, engineered systems and other technologies aimed at spawning whole new fields or industries or radically transforming the product lines, processes, and practices of current industries.

At the same time, they have produced a new generation of engineering graduates who are highly innovative, diverse, globally engaged, and effective as technology leaders in academia and industry. NSF has continually refined the goals and purposes of the ERC program to meet shifting needs.

The NSF-requested 2017 study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) "A New Vision for Center-Based Engineering Research" ( https://www. nap. edu/catalog/24767/a-new-vision-for-center-based-engineering-research ) recommends that NSF places a greater emphasis on forming research centers focused on convergent research and education approaches that address challenges with significant societal impact.

Complex societal problems require a convergent approach for the deep integration of knowledge, tools, and ways of thinking across disciplinary boundaries. A detailed explanation of the convergence concept can be found in a 2014 National Academies report, "Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering and Beyond" ( https://www. nap.

edu/catalog/18722/convergence-facilitating-transdisciplinary-integration-of-life-sciences-physical-sciences-engineering ). This current iteration of the ERC program reflects the recommendations from the NASEM study as well as other sources.

The program continues to focus on advancing an engineered system through inclusive cross-disciplinary and cross-sector partnerships, while placing greater emphasis on research with high- risk/high-payoff ideas that lead to societal impact through convergent approaches, engaging broader stakeholder communities, and using team science concepts for their team formation.

The ERC program is grounded by the four foundational components of the ERC: Convergent Research (CR), Engineering Workforce Development (EWD), Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI), and the Innovation Ecosystem (IE) (Figure 1). These foundational components are connected by an integrated, holistic ERC vision and strategic plan.

The whole of the ERC has added value and synergies that require a center or institute-like approach as opposed to individual projects. Figure 1: The NSF Gen-4 Engineering Research Center model.

Convergent Research (CR): High-risk/high-payoff research ideas and discoveries that push the frontiers of engineering knowledge; ERC convergent research is a highly collaborative and interdisciplinary approach that leads to positive impacts on society. Convergence involves the integration of various fields in engineering and science, including all branches of science, in a coordinated and interdependent manner.

This approach fosters strong collaborations that are essential for successful inquiry. Engineering Workforce Development (EWD): In addition to training opportunities for ERC participants, the Center engages in human resource capacity development aligned with the targeted engineered system. ERC EWD strengthens a robust spectrum of engineering education pathways and technical workforce opportunities.

EWD occurs at all levels of the Center and provides opportunities for engagement by all ERC members including students, faculty, and external partners as appropriate. The ERC EWD program is driven by the future education, workforce development, and labor market needs relevant to the proposed Center.

Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI): In addition to fomenting a diverse team, the culture of the ERC and teams within the ERC demonstrate an environment of inclusion in which all members feel valued and welcomed, creatively contribute, and gain mutual benefit from participating.

Because of the ERC's attention to diversity and culture of inclusion, participation from members of groups traditionally underrepresented in engineering as well as diverse scientific and other perspectives is required. The ERC DCI program ensures diversity at all levels of the Center and employs an intentional and evidence-based approach to developing a culture of inclusion.

Innovation Ecosystem (IE): Trusted partners that work together to create and enhance the capacity for innovation and new ways for delivering value with positive societal impact. ERC innovation ecosystems (IE) include effective translational efforts from ideation to implementation, workforce development that creates the workforce needed for the enterprise, and deliberate efforts to attract funding and resources.

ERCs articulate plans for strategic engagement of stakeholder communities while including the legal, ethical, civic, and societal acceptance frameworks needed to protect the participants. The ERC foundational elements are carried out in concert through ERC activities and in alignment with the Center's vision and targeted societal impact.

The overall impact of the ERC program is expected within the Engineering Community , the Scientific Enterprise , and Society , shown in Figure 1 (above). These may be thought of as nested regions of increasing influence, where the largest scale of impact is on society itself. Potential outcomes of ERCs are organized within each of the four ERC foundational components.

Engineering Community: ERCs not only create fundamental knowledge and technology, but also impact the engineering community, preparing students and researchers by highlighting new engineering approaches and best practices for engineering workforce development, diversity and inclusion, and academic-industrial partnerships.

Scientific Enterprise: ERCs should be exemplars of how cohesive, high-performing teams engage in convergent research and innovative approaches to create major impact that informs and inspires the scientific community, engineering and beyond. Society: ERCs enable society to have a better quality of life, and be more resilient, productive, and safe.

Each ERC is expected to have a transformational positive impact on significant societal challenges and opportunities. This is the level where the introduction of value creation and technology innovation requires an understanding of socio-technical interactions and how they might impact society at large. In response, new strategies, concepts, ideas and/or re- organizations may be needed to shore-up, extend, or strengthen society.

The desired outcome is the ERC's ability to assist society in its drive to advance the national health, prosperity, welfare, and to secure the national defense. The goal of the ERC program has traditionally been to integrate engineering research and education with technological innovation to transform and improve national prosperity, health, and security.

Building upon this tradition, NSF is interested in supporting ERCs to develop and advance engineered systems, which if successful, will have a high Societal Impact . ERCs create inclusive cultures not only to integrate scientific discovery with technological innovation through convergent engineered systems research and education, but also to include the participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in engineering.

ERCs build partnerships with industry, practitioners, and other key stakeholders to strengthen the innovative capacity of the United States in a global context. In addition to building capacity for research, innovation, and a diverse workforce, ERCs are expected to produce significant outcomes within the 10-year timeframe of NSF support and beyond.

ERCs should realize a vision of advancing an engineered system driven by clearly articulated societal impact and should have strong synergies or value-added rationale that justifies a center or institute-like approach.

As part of creating sustainable positive impacts on society and communities, ERCs should focus on positive outcomes that can be seen within engineering communities and build and empower human resource capacity for their targeted engineering challenges. Beyond this, ERCs should contribute to the scientific enterprise by advancing research, science, engineering fundamentals, and research communities.

This should be demonstrated with benchmarks against the state-of-the-art. ERCs should build knowledge, prepare students and researchers that respect and flourish in an environment with diverse perspectives, impact how engineering research is conducted and provide value for society.

The ERC program encourages proposals addressing a broad spectrum of engineering topics, including but not limited to advanced manufacturing, advanced wireless, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, microelectronics and semiconductors, net zero technologies, quantum engineering, and systems engineering for healthcare. C.

Key Elements of an ERC Vision: The ERC vision guides discovery and technology to uniquely transform US prosperity, health, and/or security in 10 years. The vision describes the compelling new idea, explains how it relates to national needs, and makes the connection to engineering.

Strategic Plan: The ERC strategic plan connects and leverages research, engineering workforce development, diversity and culture of inclusion, and innovation ecosystem to address the chosen societal challenge. The overall plan should employ three strategic approaches: Convergence : "Convergence is an approach to problem solving that cuts across disciplinary boundaries.

It integrates knowledge, tools, and ways of thinking across disciplinary boundaries in STEM fields to form a comprehensive synthetic framework for tackling scientific and societal challenges that exist at the interfaces of multiple fields." ( https://www. nap.

edu/catalog/18722/convergence-facilitating-transdisciplinary-integration-of-life-sciences-physical-sciences-engineering ).

This is also stated in another report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) from the Committee on a Vision for the Future of Center-based Multidisciplinary Engineering Research, which defined convergent engineering as a deeply collaborative, team-based engineering approach for defining and solving important and complex societal problems ( https://www. nap.

edu/catalog/24767/a-new-vision-for-center-based-engineering-research ). Hence, convergent research blends scientific disciplines in a coordinated, reciprocal way and fosters the robust collaboration needed for successful inquiry and has the strong potential to lead to transformative solutions and new fields of study.

The research thrusts, testbeds, team formation, and other major aspects of the research plan should support a convergent approach. Stakeholder Engagement : The intentional and early-stage engagement of all parties who may contribute to the ERC or may be impacted by the ERC along its capacity-building and value creation responsibilities.

Stakeholders can include, but are not limited to, relevant researchers across partner institutions with complementary research and education expertise; undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral researchers; industry leaders who can guide the innovation effort; partners for innovation, education, workforce development, and diversity and culture of inclusion of all participants; and beneficiaries of the ERC outcomes (e. g.

, community members, users, customers, patients, and watchdog organizations). Team Formation : The process by which all necessary disciplines, skills, perspectives, and capabilities are brought together. Successful teams are interdependent, multidisciplinary, and diverse and can work and communicate effectively even when geographically dispersed.

Team formation includes evidence-based strategies and team science training to overcome barriers to effective, collaborative teaming, including the integration of members with different areas of expertise, different vocabularies and core values and ways of approaching problems, different understanding of the problems to be addressed, different values, and different working styles.

This is especially needed during the early stages of the Center.

Organization and Management Structure: Effective Leadership : ERC leaders have intellectual vision, demonstrable leadership, successful entrepreneurial experience, a track record of delivering results, and the ability to communicate clearly and effectively with diverse audiences such as team members, sponsors, partners, host institutions, stakeholders, press and media, and the public.

Below are some example practices desired for effective ERC leadership and management teams: Empowers all team members to contribute; Builds consensus around goals and problem definition; Facilitates communication to ensure a common understanding among all stakeholders; and resolves conflicts and builds trust.

It is rare that a single individual will have all of these attributes; thus, a strong leader will need to assemble an executive team that covers this broad spectrum of skills. The Center Director should understand their strengths and limitations, should be effective in assembling an executive leadership team that fills in the gaps of their limitations, and should be supported by an effective Council of Deans (See Section II. C.

for details of the formation of the Council of Deans). The Director does not need to be a faculty member. Organization and Management : An effective management structure begins with a clear understanding of the goals of the ERC and how the structure (including the ERC four foundational components) will support those goals.

The structure should have the flexibility to adapt as the needs of the ERC change, as key people transition into or out of the ERC, or change roles, and to handle other changes as the ERC matures. It is critical to have one person or team that has clear responsibility for each foundational component of the ERC.

However, each ERC participant and each of the core participants should also understand the importance of each foundational component and be engaged in their role in carrying it out. Core partner institutions must meet the eligibility requirements of at least 3 faculty and 3 students participating in the ERC; postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students.

Proposing teams will determine the funding source(s) of student support and nature of participation, whether graduate or undergraduate. Typically, ER's have many more fully/partly funded graduate and undergraduate students engaged in the ERC, in addition to faculty or postdocs. ERC program experience has shown that an important role in the ERC structure is that of an administrative director, as described below.

This remains a mandatory piece of the management structure. Administrative Director : An experienced staff member at the lead university who is responsible for operational management, financial management, data collection, publicity, and reporting, etc. for the ERC.

Post-award NSF training is available for this position given the ERC reporting complexities. Lead Institution : The lead institution effectively guides the multiple elements of the ERC. The ERC headquarters are located at the lead institution, and the lead institution is the NSF recipient and is ultimately responsible for the financial and reporting obligations of the ERC award.

Core Partners : To qualify as a core partner university, there must be a minimum of three faculty participating in the ERC along with a minimum of three students; postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students. Core partners are included in the Cost Sharing requirements and in the Council of Deans (See Section II. C.

for details of the formation of the Council of Deans.) Other potential partners may include universities contributing affiliated faculty, federal laboratories, private-sector or non-profit organizations, educational partners, and/or foreign collaborators' universities or institutions. While not considered core partners, the involvement of such partners can be valuable.

Industrial/Practitioner Member : An organization that satisfies all requirements for membership according to the Center's membership agreement which may include financial support (cash or in-kind).

ERCs should engage industrial/practitioner members from sectors such as the Federal Government, State government, local government, quasi-government research, industry, industry association, policy organization, regulatory agency, medical facility, private foundation, nonprofit, venture capitalists, community organizations, professional/trade union, and other stakeholders as appropriate for the center's mission.

Affiliated Faculty Member : The ERC may include affiliated faculty members, which are faculty members who are contributing to the ERC from institutions other than the lead or core partner universities and are included in the budget. Institutional Commitment : The lead and all core partner institutions must augment support for the ERC through cost-sharing and other allowed means and sustain the ERC once NSF's support ceases.

Lead, core, and other partner academic institutions must commit to: Joining in partnership to support the ERC's vision, strategic plans, and activities in CR, EWD, DCI, IE and their integration across the institutions. Assuring cross-university industrial membership and intellectual property (IP) policies that recognize shared rights for joint work.

Adopting institutional policies to reward faculty, particularly those in the promotion and tenure process, for participating in convergent research and innovation, technological advance, mentoring, university and pre-college education activity, and delivering on the ERC's plans for workforce development and creating an inclusive and diverse culture. NSF strongly encourages the full spectrum of diverse talent that society has to offer.

Official recognition for university students engaged in mentoring of other university students and in pre-college outreach. This recognition is crucial to acknowledge their efforts and motivate them to continue their valuable work Community Feedback : Broad-based stakeholder feedback to the ERCs is one of the important mechanisms used by the ERC to provide continual monitoring of the Center's health.

Advisory Boards : Advisory boards are formed to reinforce and support the proper functioning of the ERC's foundational components which are CR, EWD, DCI, and IE, as described above. Careful consideration must be given to defining each advisory board's functional role and selecting quality board members capable of overseeing that role. An example of a generic ERC feedback loop structure is illustrated in Figure 2.

As part of the NSF Management/Oversight, the NSF Program Director and the NSF Site Visit Team (SVT) typically interact with the ERC and give feedback to the ERC once a year at a minimum. The advisory boards provide feedback at least twice a year; usually more often on an as needed basis. It may occasionally be necessary to form additional special committees to support special needs of the Center's vision.

The staffing of these committees may be either internal or external. The Council of Deans and Student Leadership Council, as defined below, are mandatory advisory groups; however, the ERC is expected to propose appropriate advisory groups beyond these two. Figure 2: Generic Executive Leadership Team illustrating the advisory board feedback mechanism.

The SLC and the Council of Deans are mandatory advisory groups. Other advisory boards are expected to be formed according to the needs of the ERC. Appointees in the blue are from within the ERC Team.

Appointees in the yellow boxes are external to the ERC partner institutions. Student Leadership Council (SLC) : Undergraduate and graduate students from all partner universities responsible for coordinating their various activities in support of the ERC. A student president and a student co-president lead the SLC.

The SLC will prepare a written Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis and present the SWOT findings during the annual visit of the NSF Site Visit Team (SVT). Council of Deans : Led by the Dean of Engineering from the Lead university, this Council includes the Deans from the lead and each core partner institution.

They meet collectively to provide administrative support of the ERC and to help facilitate multiple ERC elements across the lead and core partner universities. The Dean may not designate an alternate unless a PI, Co-PI, Director, or any senior personnel is also a Dean at the Institution. The two roles cannot be performed by the same person.

Estimated program budget, number of awards, and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds. The maximum annual budget allowed is shown in the table below. Year 1 budget will be committed upon award, and subsequent year budgets are subject to satisfactory annual review of accomplishments and availability of funds.

After a gradual ramp up, years three through five are projected to level off at $6,000,000 in each of those years. Pending performance and outcome of a renewal review in the fourth year, support for years six to eight will continue at $6,000,000 per year until the eighth year. Support for years nine and ten will be phased down, with $4,000,000 in year 9 and $2,600,000 in year 10.

No-cost extensions (NCEs) will not be granted. IV. Eligibility Information Who May Submit Proposals: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Only U.

S. Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), also referred to in this solicitation as universities and academic institutions, accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, that grant engineering degrees at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral engineering level may submit proposals as the lead university. The Lead university submits the proposal, and the award is made to the lead university.

Support is provided to core partner universities and any affiliated faculty from other partner institutions through subawards. NSF welcomes proposal submissions that broaden geographic and demographic participation.

Proposals from STEM-minority-serving institutions (STEM-MSI*), non-R1 schools, emerging research institutions, and IHEs in EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions, as lead or core partners, as well as IHEs that primarily serve populations of students with disabilities or women in engineering interested in STEM, are encouraged.

Invited full proposals must meet all the following organizational requirements or they will be returned without review: The Lead must be an Institution of Higher Education per the Carnegie Foundational Attribute: https://carnegieclassifications. acenet. edu/ A proposed