NSF 23-618: Decision, Risk and Management Sciences - Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (DRMS-DDRIG)

NSF 23-618: Decision, Risk and Management Sciences - Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (DRMS-DDRIG) is sponsored by NSF SBE. Supports doctoral dissertation research that increases understanding of how individuals, organizations, and societies make decisions, including areas like judgment, decision analysis, and risk analysis.

NSF 23-618: Decision, Risk and Management Sciences - Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (DRMS-DDRIG) | NSF - U.S. National Science Foundation Not currently accepting proposals This program is awaiting a new solicitation and is not currently accepting proposals.

Important information for proposers and award recipients All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in the funding opportunity and in the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) and its supplements . All NSF grants and cooperative agreements are subject to the applicable set of NSF award terms and conditions . NSF has updated its research security policies for NSF funded projects.

NSF 23-618: Decision, Risk and Management Sciences - Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (DRMS-DDRIG) To save a PDF of this solicitation, select Print to PDF in your browser's print options.

National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Division of Social and Economic Sciences Full Proposal Target Date(s) : January 18, Annually Thereafter August 18, Annually Thereafter Important Information And Revision Notes New and clarified program and proposal requirements are described in this solicitation: DRMS supports doctoral dissertation research improvement grants (DDRIGs), and this document clarifies the ways in which DDRIG proposals must comply with requirements beyond those listed in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) .

Investigators must follow this solicitation and the current PAPPG. Where the solicitation differs from the PAPPG, the solicitation takes precedence. To assure that the proposal is appropriate for DRMS, the advisor of the doctoral student is strongly encouraged to contact one of the DRMS program directors by email prior to the preparation of the DDRIG proposal.

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 Decision, Risk and Management Sciences - Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (DRMS-DDRIG) The Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program (DRMS) supports scientific research directed at increasing understanding and effectiveness of decision making by individuals, groups, organizations and society.

DRMS supports research with solid foundations in theories and methods of the social and behavioral sciences. This social and behavioral science research should advance knowledge, address fundamental scientific and societal issues and have strong broader impacts. DRMS funds doctoral dissertation research improvement grants (DDRIGs) in the following areas: Judgement and decision making.

Decision analysis and decision aids. Risk analysis, perception and communication. Societal and public-policy decision making.

Management science and organizational design. All research must be grounded in theory and generalizable. Purely theoretical or algorithmic proposals are not appropriate for DRMS DDRIG proposals.

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. Claudia Gonzalez-Vallejo, Program Director, Robert E.

O'Connor, Program Director, Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant Estimated Number of Awards: 20 to 30 It is anticipated that 20 to 30 DDRIG awards will be made per fiscal year.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $450,000 to $675,000 The anticipated funding amount is $450,000 to $675,000 total per fiscal year (1 October through 30 September), pending availability of funds. Project budgets should be developed at scales appropriate for the work to be conducted. Proposal budgets cannot exceed $30,000 in total costs (direct and indirect costs) for the entire duration of the award.

Indirect costs are subject to the recipient’s current federally negotiated indirect cost rate. The maximum project duration is 12 months. The proposer may concurrently submit a doctoral dissertation proposal to other funding organizations.

Please indicate this in the "Current and Pending (Other) Support" section of the NSF proposal, so that NSF may coordinate funding with the other organizations. Who May Submit Proposals: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Ph. D.

granting IHEs accredited in, and having a campus located in, the U.S. acting on behalf of their faculty members. DRMS DDRIG proposals must be submitted through regular organizational channels by the dissertation advisor. The principal investigator (PI) must be the doctoral student's dissertation advisor and the co-principal investigator (co-PI) must be the doctoral student.

If appropriate, and at the discretion of the submitting organization, an additional faculty advisor at the same or another institution may be listed as another co-PI. Doctoral students are expected to be at the appropriate stage of their academic careers to enable them to work with their dissertation advisors to prepare and to submit the DDRIG proposal. Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: There is no limitation on the number of DDRIG proposals submitted to the DRMS Program by advisors or other faculty members functioning as the PI, either during a particular competition or over the course of their careers. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions A.

Proposal Preparation Instructions Letters of Intent: Not required Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required 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: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Full Proposal Target Date(s) : January 18, Annually Thereafter August 18, Annually Thereafter Proposal Review Information Criteria National Science Board approved criteria apply.

Award Administration Information Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

The Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program (DRMS) awards Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants (DDRIGs) in all areas of research supported by the DRMS program . This document clarifies the ways in which DDRIG proposals must comply with requirements beyond those listed in the PAPPG. Where the solicitation differs from the PAPPG, the solicitation takes precedence.

To assure that the proposal is appropriate for DRMS, the advisor of the doctoral student is strongly encouraged to contact one of the DRMS program directors by email prior to the preparation of the DDRIG proposal. The Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program (DRMS) supports scientific research directed at increasing understanding and effectiveness of decision making by individuals, groups, organizations and society.

DRMS supports research with solid foundations in theories and methods of the social and behavioral sciences. This social and behavioral science research should advance knowledge, address fundamental scientific and societal issues and have strong broader impacts. DRMS funds doctoral dissertation research improvement grants (DDRIGs) in the following areas: Judgment and decision making.

Decision analysis and decision aids. Risk analysis, perception and communication. Societal and public-policy decision making.

Management science and organizational design. All research must be grounded in theory and generalizable. Purely theoretical or algorithmic proposals are not appropriate for DRMS DDRIG proposals.

Proposal budgets cannot exceed $30,000 in total costs (direct and indirect costs) for the entire duration of the award. Indirect costs are subject to the recipient’s current federally negotiated indirect cost rate. The maximum project duration is 12 months.

Additional Program Considerations DRMS requires that curated data be submitted to a publicly accessible repository within 2 years of final data collection. Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant Estimated Number of Awards: 20 to 30 It is anticipated that 20 to 30 DDRIG awards will be made per fiscal year.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $450,000 to $675,000 The anticipated funding amount is $450,000 to $675,000 total per fiscal year (1 October through 30 September), pending availability of funds. Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds. IV.

Eligibility Information Who May Submit Proposals: Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Ph. D. granting IHEs accredited in, and having a campus located in, the U.S. acting on behalf of their faculty members.

DRMS DDRIG proposals must be submitted through regular organizational channels by the dissertation advisor. The principal investigator (PI) must be the doctoral student's dissertation advisor and the co-principal investigator (co-PI) must be the doctoral student. If appropriate, and at the discretion of the submitting organization, an additional faculty advisor at the same or another institution may be listed as another co-PI.

Doctoral students are expected to be at the appropriate stage of their academic careers to enable them to work with their dissertation advisors to prepare and to submit the DDRIG proposal. Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: There is no limitation on the number of DDRIG proposals submitted to the DRMS Program by advisors or other faculty members functioning as the PI, either during a particular competition or over the course of their careers. 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 Research. gov or Grants. gov. 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.

D. 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.

The following section lists DRMS-DDRIG proposal information and requirements that augment the PAPPG standard guidance: Select "Prepare New Full Proposal" in Research. gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step 1 of the Full Proposal wizard. The information in Step 2, Where to Apply, will be prepopulated by the system.

Select "Research" as the proposal type. In the proposal details section, select "Single proposal (with or without subawards). Separately submitted collaborative proposals will be returned without review.

The project title must begin with “Doctoral Dissertation Research:” followed by a succinct, descriptive and jargon-free title of the dissertation research project that emphasizes the generalizable science that the research will address. List the primary dissertation advisor as the PI and list the doctoral student (and other advisors, only if highly appropriate to the conduct of the research) as Co-PI(s).

The proposer may concurrently submit a doctoral dissertation proposal to other funding organizations. Please indicate this in the "Current and Pending Support" section of the NSF proposal, so that NSF may coordinate funding with the other organizations. Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Other Budgetary Limitations: Proposal budgets cannot exceed $30,000 in total costs (direct and indirect costs) for the entire duration of the award. Indirect costs are subject to the recipient’s current federally negotiated indirect cost rate.

Funds may be used to support all research expenses allowed under the PAPPG, including travel by the doctoral student to professional meetings and publication costs for articles derived from DDRIG research. Exceptions are that funds may not be used for stipends or salary for the doctoral student or advisor, tuition, journals, dissertation preparation, or travel by the dissertation advisor to professional meetings.

Full Proposal Target Date(s) : January 18, Annually Thereafter August 18, Annually Thereafter D. Research. gov/Grants.

gov Requirements For Proposals Submitted Via Research. gov: 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 Research. gov user support, call the Research.

gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail rgov@nsf. gov . The Research.

gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research. gov system. 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 Research. gov for further processing. Proposers that submitted via 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/ . 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.

D. 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. D.

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. 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 or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support 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 provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents.

Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding. VII.

Award Administration Information A. Notification of the Award Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program.

Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI. B.

for additional information on the review process.)

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice.

Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail. *These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.

nsf. gov/awards/managing/award_conditions. jsp?

org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf. gov .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www. nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ.

jsp? ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements Build America, Buy America As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States.

For additional information, visit NSF’s Build America, Buy America webpage. Special Award Conditions: DRMS requires that curated data be submitted to a publicly accessible repository within 2 years of final data collection. C.

Reporting Requirements For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports).

No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public. Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award.

PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data. PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research. gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports.

Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research. gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete.

The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research. gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www. nsf. gov/publications/pub_summ.

jsp? ods_key=pappg . Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing.

See program website for any updates to