National Science Foundation Major Research Instrumentation Program Internal Review and Selection Internal Competition Submission Deadline: 5:00pm on Thursday, October 12, 2017
APPLICATION GUIDELINES
Purpose The National Science Foundation’s FY18 submission deadline for the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) grant program is January 10, 2018. Additional information regarding the program, including full proposal guidelines, may be found here: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5260.
The NSF MRI grant program allows only three proposal submissions per institution: two proposals for instrument acquisition and one proposal for instrument development. For the past several competition cycles, UTC has had more than two faculty teams who wanted to pursue instrument acquisition grants. In the event that we have more than two faculty teams interested in equipment acquisition, or more than one faculty team interested in instrument development this year, the ORSP will be coordinating an internal review and selection process.
How to Apply Faculty members who are interested in submitting an NSF MRI proposal for FY 2018 should submit 1) a Notice of Intent by September 29 at 5:00PM (Attachment D) and 2) an internal proposal no later than October 12 at 5:00 PM. Both items should be sent to [email protected].
The internal proposal should include:
1. MRI Internal Selection Competition Proposal Cover Page (Attachment C) 2. A 2-page abstract (single spaced) that includes: o A discussion of the intellectual merit of the proposed activity o A discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activity 3. Biosketch of the Lead & Co-PIs in NSF format – 2-page maximum for each individual 4. Extramural Support List: o Include all active, pending and planned extramural research grants. o Include funding agency, grant numbers, dates of duration, and total direct costs. 5. For Resubmissions only: Resubmissions may request an additional priority point. If you have previously submitted an MRI proposal to NSF and wish to revise and resubmit that proposal, you must include a copy of the reviewers’ comments (from Fastlane) and a 1-page description of your plan to address reviewers’ comments to strengthen the proposal for resubmission. This is optional but the only way to request the extra priority point.
In addition to the cover page and abstract, applicants may also submit any attachments that they deem essential to a thorough panel review, including, but not limited to:
1 1. Full proposals: Although not required, applicants may attach a full proposal (in draft form or one that has been previously submitted) to their internal application. Please indicate whether or not the proposal has been submitted to NSF in the past. 2. Support letters: If your project requires significant internal or external commitments, you may consider including letters of support as an appendix.
The review panel will be encouraged to take supplemental attachments into consideration when making their evaluation.
Proposal Review and Selection The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs will engage a review panel composed of 3-5 UTC faculty representatives, administrators, and external experts. Each abstract will be evaluated using a 10-point scale aligned with the MRI guidelines (see Attachment B). Reviews and recommendations will be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Research who will make final selection decisions.
One (1) priority point may be awarded to investigators who have previously submitted their proposals, have included the reviewers’ comments, and have provided a detailed and compelling description of how they will address the reviewers’ concerns in their resubmission. If you have previously submitted to NSF for this same piece of equipment, you are required to list all years of previous submissions on the Cover Sheet (Attachment C).
In order for ORSP to begin forming appropriate review panels, PIs are asked to submit a Letter of Intent (Attachment D) to [email protected] no later than September 29. This will not be a firm requirement to submit to the internal competition, but it is strongly suggested (and greatly appreciated).
It is important to note that the review panel is fully aware that they are reviewing an abstract of a project, and not a fully developed proposal. Although the evaluation criteria from the full guidelines will be used to evaluate the abstract, it is understood that a thorough discussion of each criterion will not be possible given space restraints. Please use your best judgment when preparing your abstract and include the information that you feel will be most relevant and helpful to the panel when making their decision.
MRI Internal Review and Selection Timeline
Submit a letter of intent to [email protected] 5 PM – September 29, 2017
Submit Internal Application Materials to [email protected] 5 PM – October 12, 2017
All applicants notified of final decision November 3, 2017
2 ATTACHMENT A: MRI INFO SHEET (ACQUISITION PROPOSALS)
NSF Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Information Sheet Acquisition Proposals Program Title: Major Research Instrumentation Program (MRI) Program Website: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5260 A. Synopsis of Program NSF’s MRI program serves to increase access to shared scientific and engineering instruments for research and research training. This program provides an opportunity to acquire major instrumentation that supports the research and research training goals of the University and that may be used by other researchers regionally or nationally. This program especially seeks to improve the quality and expand the scope of research and research training in science and engineering, by providing shared instrumentation that fosters the integration of research and education in research-intensive learning environments. Proposals must be for acquisition of a single, shared-use, well-integrated research instrument or for equipment that, when combined, serves as an integrated research instrument (physical or virtual) that identifies training uses and users, in the range of $100,000 to $4 million. Proposals must be for either acquisition (Track 1) – 2 max from each institution - or development (Track 2) – max of 1 from each institution. Track 1 proposals should request support for the acquisition of a shared, major, state-of-the- art instrument, thereby improving access to, and increased use of, a modern research instrument by scientists, engineers, and students. Track 2 proposals should request support for the development of the next generation of major instrumentation, resulting in a new type of instrument that is more widely used, and/or opens up new areas of research and research training. B. MRI Program Goals The primary purpose of the MRI program is to improve the quality and expand the scope of research and research training in science and engineering through acquisition or development of a single research instrument that is too costly and/or not appropriate for support through other NSF programs. An MRI proposal must conform to the program's primary goals of: 1. Supporting the acquisition of shared-use instrumentation that enhances the capabilities of researchers both within and outside the university (proposals that leverage the strengths of private sector partners to build instrument development capacity are encouraged); AND 2. Enabling a specific research experiment or type of research experiment to be undertaken by providing an integrated instrument without which the experiment(s) could not occur or succeed. An MRI proposal may also address the following additional program goals: acquisition of research instrumentation that makes use of, advances, and/or expands the Nation's cyber-infrastructure and/or high performance computing capability (while avoiding duplication of services already provided by NSF investments). MRI proposals that are aligned with the evolving NSF vision, including those that support development of computational and data-intensive science and engineering programs, or that provide pathways to regional and national infrastructure, are strongly encouraged. C. MRI Acquisition Program Scope Instrument Acquisition (Track 1) The science and engineering research enterprise relies on the availability of modern instrumentation, much of which can be acquired with little/no modification from existing sources. An acquisition (Track 1) proposal is characterized by a purchase having little risk to complete. An MRI acquisition proposal is characterized by a demonstrated need for the purchase or upgrade of a generally available, yet sophisticated, instrument with little to no modification. Eligible project costs include cost of the 3 instrument, installation, commissioning, and calibration, the direct and indirect costs of maintenance, and of appropriate technical support to operate the instrument during the award period. Salary support, including fringe benefits and indirect costs, is considered an eligible cost only for personnel directly involved in maintaining the instrument or providing appropriate technical support to operate the instrument. At least 70% of the total project cost must consist of items that can be included on the Equipment line. Instrument Development (Track 2) The academic research enterprise relies on new generations of sophisticated research instrumentation and NSF encourages individual investigators, and teams of researchers, to apply for instrument development support. A development proposal should include a demonstration of the need for a new or extensively upgraded instrument that can provide enhanced or potentially transformative use and performance, open up new areas of research and research training, and/or have potential as a commercial product. “Performance” may include such things are accuracy, reliability, resolving power, throughput speed, sample capacity, flexibility of operation, breadth of application, user-friendliness, and/or new types of measurement or information gathering. Eligible project costs are limited to parts and materials needed for the construction of the instrument, commissioning costs, and the direct and indirect costs associated with support of personnel engaged strictly in the instrument development effort. Requests for personnel support must include a description of the responsibilities of the individuals involved and explain why a given position is necessary for the completion of the design, construction and commissioning of the new instrument. Any proposal requesting direct student support in development efforts must justify the involvement in terms of both project needs and training the next generation of instrumentalists. Travel costs that are integral to the development work and publication costs associated with the dissemination of information about the design and capabilities of the instrument are eligible costs. The MRI program will NOT support proposal requests for any of the following: Construction, renovation or modernization of rooms, buildings or research facilities - this category refers to the space where sponsored or unsponsored research activities (including research training) occur, whether "bricks-and-mortar", mobile, or virtual; Large, specialized experimental facilities that are constructed with significant amounts of common building material using standard building techniques. Instruments in general can be decoupled from the structure or environment that contains them; General purpose and supporting equipment - this category includes (but is not limited to) general purpose ancillary computers or laboratory instruments. Supporting equipment refers to basic, durable components of a research facility that are integral to its operation (e.g., fume hoods, elevators, laboratory casework, cryogen storage systems, general-purpose computational or data storage systems). It also includes supporting facilities such as vehicle charging stations; Sustaining infrastructure and/or building systems - this category includes (but is not limited to) the installation of or upgrades to infrastructure related to the supply of power, ventilation, water or research gases, routine multi-purpose computer networks, standard safety features, and other general purpose systems (e.g., toxic waste removal systems and telecommunications equipment); General purpose platforms or environment - this category may include (but is not limited to) general purpose fixed or non-fixed structures as well as manned or unmanned vehicles whose role is to host or transport an instrument. Instrumentation used primarily for science and engineering education courses. Other programs at NSF (e.g., the Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) program) provide funding for the development of exemplary courses and teaching practices, including instrumentation to support such projects. D. Eligible Fields of Science and Engineering
4 Proposals for instrumentation will be considered for the fields of science, engineering, mathematics, or education research typically supported by NSF programs. Although the MRI program will not support instrumentation to be used in medical education (such as medical school courses), instrumentation for bioengineering research with diagnosis- or treatment-related goals that applies engineering principles to problems in biology and medicine, while also advancing engineering knowledge, is eligible. Instrumentation for research in bioinformatics and biocomputing, or for bioengineering research to aid persons with disabilities also is eligible.
5 ATTACHMENT B: INTERNAL EVALUATION RUBRIC
UTC Internal Review National Science Foundation Major Research Instrumentation
Directions:
The criteria listed below represent the project elements necessary for a competitive proposal. Each proposal will be evaluated against the criteria and given a rating of 0‐4. Note that the proposals should not be ranked against each other but rather rated based on the fit of their project elements to the criteria. The highest possible “Total Score” a proposal could receive is 10 (for a new application) or 11 (for a revision/resubmission). The result will be a natural ranking of all the proposals, from highest score to lowest score.
One (1) priority point will be awarded to investigators who have previously submitted their proposals, have included the reviewers’ comments, and have provided a detailed and adequate description of how they will address the reviewers’ concerns in their resubmission.
Rate each proposal's fit with the criteria on the following scale:
4 = exceeds criteria
3 = significant fit with criteria
2 = elements applicable to criteria
1 = slight correspondence to criteria
0 = no fit to criteria
CRITERIA: When evaluating 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:
A. Proposal demonstrates strong intellectual merit. (4 pts.)
Further Explanation:
How important is the proposed activity to advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?
6 To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• How well conceived and organized are the proposed activities?
• Is there sufficient access to resources?
B. Proposal will have significant broader impacts. (4 pts.)
Further Explanation:
How important is the proposed activity to advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?
To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• How well conceived and organized are the proposed activities?
• Is there sufficient access to resources?
C. Capability of Research team. (2 pts.)
Further Explanation: How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? To what extent do the members of the research team possess the expertise and history of successful related experience to ensure that the project activities will be appropriately conducted, managed, and coordinated, as demonstrated in the biosketches? Are there adequate resources available to the PI to carry out the proposed activities?
PRIORITY POINT CONSIDERATION:
D. Proposal Resubmission (1 pt.)
Further Explanation:
Investigators have previously submitted their proposals to NSF.
Proposals have adequately and sufficiently discussed the reviewers’ comments and adjusted their projects accordingly.
7 ATTACHMENT C: Proposal Cover Page
National Science Foundation Major Research Instrumentation Program Internal Review and Selection Internal Competition Submission Deadline: 5:00pm on Thursday, October 12, 2017
Cover Page Principal Investigator:
Co-PIs and Collaborating Personnel:
Working Title of Project:
Type of Proposal: ☐ Acquisition (Track 1) ☐ Development (Track 2)
Equipment to be Purchased:
Departments Benefited:
Consideration for Priority Points:
Have you submitted an MRI proposal to NSF in the past? ☐ Yes ☐ No
If Yes: When was the proposal submitted? (list all years) ______
Was the proposal funded? ☐ Yes ☐ No
If not, do you plan to revise and resubmit that proposal for this competition? ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, attach a summary of the NSF reviewers’ comments and a 1-2 paragraph description of how you plan to address them.
Abstract / Summary (100 word limit):
ATTACHMENT D: Notice of Intent 8 National Science Foundation Major Research Instrumentation Program Internal Review and Selection Internal Competition Notice of Intent Submission Deadline: 5:00pm on Wednesday, September 29, 2017
Letter of Intent Principal Investigator:
Co-PIs and Collaborating Personnel:
Working Title of Project:
Type of Proposal: ☐ Acquisition (Track 1) ☐ Development (Track 2)
Brief Description of Equipment and Area(s) of Study that will be impacted by its acquisition (limit 3-5 sentences):
9