The National Science Foundation (NSF) has combined the Grant Proposal Guide and the Grant Policy Manual and replaced them with the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide which will become effective on June 1, 2007. All proposals forwarded to Research Administration and Finance (RA&F) for submission to NSF on or after June 1 must follow the guidelines contained in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) section of this manual. It is important that all proposals conform to the instructions provided in the GPG as NSF may return without review, proposals that are not consistent with these instructions. The only exceptions to deviate from standard proposal preparation guidelines are specific requirements in an NSF program solicitation or written approval by the appropriate NSF official.

The complete copy of the manual can be found on the NSF website (NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide). Prior to submitting a proposal to NSF, please thoroughly review the GPG and if you have any questions consult your NSF program manager. In order to assist you in preparing proposals for submission to NSF, outlined below are the significant changes that will take affect on June 1, 2007. These changes are posted on the RA&F website along with a document which outlines the basic NSF proposal preparation requirements.

Chapter I – Section A, NSF Proposal Preparation and Submission Mechanisms, has been revised to begin the GPG with a description of the two electronic mechanisms available to proposers in the preparation and submission of proposals to NSF – FastLane and Grants.gov. The title of Chapter I also has been changed to “Pre-Submission Information.”

Chapter I – Section E, Categories of Proposers, has been supplemented to clarify that the category “Universities and Colleges” is defined as institutions located and accredited in the US.

Chapter I – Section F, When to Submit Proposals, has been updated with a new section on Special Exceptions to NSF’s Deadline Date Policy. Should a natural or anthropogenic disaster temporarily prevent submission to NSF, proposers may request flexibility in meeting the announced deadline date by obtaining PRIOR approval from the cognizant NSF Program Officer.

Chapter II – Section B.2, Proposal Margin and Spacing Requirements, has entirely new guidance which specifies the five fonts that may be used when preparing an NSF proposal. The proposal must be clear, readily legible, and the following fonts should be used: An Arial, Helvetica, Palatino, Computer Modern, or Georgia type face, a black font color, and a font size of 10 points or larger. The page formatting section also has been revised to state that a standard, single-column format should be used in the body of the proposal.

Chapter II – Section C.1.e, Proposal Certifications, has been supplemented with additional proposal certifications.

Chapter II – Section C.2.a, Cover Sheet, has been revised to more closely follow the format of the Cover Sheet contained in FastLane and to provide explanatory information on each of the requested sections.

Chapter II – Section C.2.f, Biographical Sketch(es), has been clarified to emphasize that personal information should not be included on the Biographical Sketch or submitted with the proposal.

Chapter II – Section C.2.g, Budget, has been reorganized so that coverage in the GPG discusses the budget and allowability of costs from a budget preparation perspective and the AAG discusses it from an allowability and administration perspective. The cost principles that govern each type of awardee are included in this section as well.

Chapter II – Section C.2.g(i)(a), Salaries and Wages, has been clarified to show that individuals included on Lines A and B of the budget should be employees of the proposing organization. Compensation for consultants or subawardees, including salaries and wages, should not be included in that section of the budget.

Chapter II – Section C.2.g(ii), Fringe Benefits, has been supplemented with further information on calculation of fringe benefits for different classes of employees.

Chapter II – Section C.2.g(v), Participant Support Costs, has been revised to show that for some educational projects conducted at local school districts, the participants are being trained as employees. If that is the case, the costs should be classified as participant support if a stipend or training allowance method is used.

Chapter II – Section C.2.g(vi)(a), Materials and Supplies, includes a definition and states that, for items that represent a substantial amount of the proposed materials and supplies line item cost, a description and cost of the items should be included in the budget justification.

Chapter II – Section C.2.g(viii), Indirect Costs, has been supplemented with more detailed information on calculation and negotiation of applicable indirect cost rate(s), particularly for proposers that do not have a current negotiated rate agreement with a cognizant Federal agency.

Chapter II – Section C.2.g(xi), Cost Sharing, has been substantially revised to reflect the National Science Board’s (NSB) decision to eliminate NSF program-specific cost sharing. In accordance with this NSB policy, there is no expectation by the Foundation that proposals submitted for funding will include cost sharing. In addition, there also has been a change to the previous statutory (1%) cost sharing requirement. In accordance with prior Congressional requirements, NSF required that each grantee share in the cost of research projects resulting from unsolicited proposals. The appropriations providing funds to NSF no longer contain this language and therefore, the statutory cost sharing requirement of 1% is eliminated.

Chapter II – Section C.2.j, Special Information and Supplementary Documentation, has been updated to expand information on the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Guidance also has been added on letters of support. Unless required by a specific program solicitation, letters of support should not be submitted with a proposal. If the solicitation does require them, the letters should be unique to the proposal submitted and cannot be altered without the author’s explicit prior approval. Proposals that do not comply with these instructions may be returned without review.

Chapter II – Sections D.5 and D.6, Proposals Involving Vertebrate Animals and Proposals Involving Human Subjects, have been reorganized and the format synthesized with the requirements for human subjects and vertebrate animals contained in the SF 424 R&R form.

Chapter II – Section D.7, Proposals for Conferences, Symposia and Workshops, has been updated to reflect that costs associated with these types of proposals must be specifically and clearly identified in the proposed scope of work and budget and approved by NSF.

Chapter II – Section D.10, Support for Development of NSF Centers, is an entirely new section that describes NSF’s support of various individual Centers and Centers programs. Proposers that would like to learn more about current or future NSF Centers are encouraged to contact the appropriate disciplinary Program Officer.

Chapter II – Section D.11, Support for Development of Major Facilities and Equipment, is another new section of the GPG that discusses NSF support for major research equipment and facilities construction. NSF depends on the research communities to provide input for the planning, development, and implementation of Large Facility Projects.

Chapter II – Exhibits II-1 through II-7, had previously been located as appendices at the end of the Grant Proposal Guide. Since they relate to preparation of a proposal, they have been included as Exhibits to Chapter II.

Chapter III – Section A, Review Criteria, has been supplemented with language reiterating that NSF strives to conduct a fair, competitive, and transparent merit review process. To aid proposers with understanding the NSF proposal and award process, a flowchart has been included as Exhibit III-1.

Chapter III – Section B, Selection of Reviewers, is an entirely new section that provides a description of the guidelines NSF uses for the selection of reviewers for proposals submitted to the Foundation.

Chapter IV – Section D, Reconsideration, has been expanded and, in order to maintain coverage of pre-award information in the GPG, the reconsideration information previously contained in the Grant Policy Manual has been moved to the GPG. When reconsideration by the cognizant Assistant Director/Office Head is requested, the timeframe to furnish the results of the reconsideration to the proposer has been revised to 45 days. GPG Chapter IV has also been renamed “Non-Award Decisions and Transactions.”

Chapter V – Section B, Accomplishment-Based Renewal, has been updated to show that accomplishment-based renewals are special types of renewal proposals that are appropriate only in certain circumstances. Investigators should contact the cognizant Program Officer before developing a proposal using this format.