Title : NSF 96-114 CISE Research Infrastructure Program Type : Program Guideline NSF Org: CISE Date : July 18, 1996 File : nsf96114 ANNOUNCEMENT CISE RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM DEADLINE DATE: October 21, 1996 National Science Foundation Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering Office of Cross-Disciplinary Activities Arlington, VA 22230 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The CISE Research Infrastructure Program provides support to aid in the establishment, enhancement, and operation of major experimental facilities planned to support all of the research areas in the CISE Directorate. It may also assist activities for integration of research and education. The Research Infrastructure Program recognizes the emergence of research groups requiring strengthening of experimental facilities in a variety of environments - those solely within a single academic department, those drawing from several departments in a single institution, and those spanning several different institutions. The areas of research supported by this program are those supported by the CISE Directorate as described in the Guide to Programs (NSF 95-138). In this document, the CISE Research Infrastructure Program will be abbreviated as "RI"; this designation will also include predecessors of the program: the Coordinated Experimental Research (CER) program, the Institutional Infrastructure - Large Scale program, and the Institutional Infrastructure - Small Scale program. Similarly, the statement "all of the research areas supported in the CISE Directorate" will be abbreviated as "CISE-research". SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM A primary objective of the RI program is to stimulate experimental work in CISE-research, as measured by increased scientific activity and increased participation in research of both faculty and graduate students. It also provides assistance to activities for integration of research and education. Support is provided for equipment, software, maintenance, and appropriate technical support staff. Awards generally range from $800,000 to $2,000,000 over a five-year period. In most cases five-year continuing grants are awarded under the program but shorter term awards may be recommended if appropriate. ELIGIBILITY Proposals requesting support for acquisition of experimental facilities in CISE-research will be accepted from research groups associated with US institutions with PhD degree-granting departments that have research programs in any one or more areas of CISE-research. Only one proposal per institution will be accepted in any one year. Consortia of more than one institution are considered as distinct from the institutions comprising them and should have at least one CISE-research area PhD granting institution associated with the consortia as a major participant. To qualify for an RI grant, the proposing research group should have an existing core of active researchers and research projects in CISE-research. The RI program is open to all core CISE disciplines: Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Intelligent Systems, Information Science, Networking and Communications Research. The RI program is interested in promoting multidisciplinary applications in areas funded by other NSF Directorates. However, a competitive, multidisciplinary RI proposal must contain a significant component in core CISE-research. The RI program provides support for acquisition of experimental facilities not normally available under individual research grants. Thus, an important consideration in evaluating these proposals is whether the provided experimental facilities will enable the researchers to undertake important work that otherwise would not be possible. The leverage provided by NSF funds is a key element in the evaluation of RI proposals. Another important criterion is whether the provided support will likely result in more or better results than would separate support for the individual research projects at the same total funding level. There should be a synergism present in an RI proposal that would not be provided by individual research grants. Before applying for an RI grant, the proposing group is asked to consider whether individual research or equipment grants would be more appropriate. In accordance with Federal statutes and regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. The NSF welcomes proposals on behalf of all qualified scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black, Hispanic or Pacific Islander) and persons with disabilities to compete fully in the research and research programs described herein. Proposals involving inter-institutional sharing are also welcome. FULL PARTICIPATION OF UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS The NSF encourages proposers to address the full participation of women, minorities and persons with disabilities (hereinafter referred to as underrepresented groups) in research activities. Examples of activities appropriate to the RI program are: a departmental effort to recruit female graduate students, a research collaboration with a minority institution, or a project that is focused on designing a system to provide systems access to persons with a visual disorder. ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS The RI program provides support for the acquisition of major experimental facilities in CISE-research. Eligible project costs are equipment, software, maintenance and appropriate technical support. Appropriate technical support refers to technical personnel and associated indirect costs, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the experimental facilities. Travel expenses necessary for training technical support staff in the operation and maintenance of the experimental facilities may be eligible project costs if appropriate justification is presented. Students, research assistants, postdoctoral research associates, secretarial and clerical personnel are not eligible project costs. Faculty salaries are eligible project costs only in the case of the project director when one month per year of salary and associated indirect costs may be allowable if the requested experimental facilities are sufficiently complex and appropriate justification is presented. COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS There should be strong existing institutional or multi-institutional support for the RI researchers and research projects. The institution(s) should be prepared to provide substantial cost-sharing for the proposed project equal to at least one third of the budget requested of NSF, and should assume an increasing share of the maintenance and technical support personnel costs each year throughout the grant period, as well as full support for the provided experimental facilities and technical support personnel after the grant expires. The cost-sharing may be from any private or non-Federal public source and may be cash, or any eligible project item. DEADLINE The deadline for proposals in this program is the third Monday in October. Proposals postmarked after this date will be returned unprocessed. Awards are planned for the following July of each competition year. PROPOSAL EVALUATION General criteria for the evaluation of proposals are given in Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 95-27). Because of the size and importance of the RI program, the proposal evaluation process is particularly lengthy and thorough. This process is described in the following paragraphs. Guidelines for reviewers of each phase of the review process are included as Appendix 1. Although in a given year the actual evaluation process may change in detail from that described below, the broad outline of the process is expected to remain constant. Proposing Principal Investigators will be kept informed of any changes as they occur. The proposals are evaluated in multiple stages consisting of preliminary NSF staff screening, initial panel review and recommendation, site visits, final panel review, and NSF staff award recommendations. At each stage of the review process, the project or institutional activities designed to increase participation by underrepresented groups in CISE-research, will be examined. Shortly after the annual deadline, an Initial Evaluation Panel, formed of individuals representing all of the eligible research areas, is convened to examine the proposals. This panel screens the proposals in order to identify those that are inappropriate to this program, those that are severely technically flawed, and those proposals that, while of good quality, are not the strongest contenders. These latter proposals undergo no further evaluation, but feedback from the panel is provided to the institutions to assist them in preparing future proposals. Feedback is also provided to institutions whose proposals are selected for further evaluation, so that they can prepare for site visits or future proposals. The panelists provide individual written comments using Forms as shown in Appendix 2. After consideration of the recommendations of the Initial Panel, NSF staff select some of the proposals for site visits and decline the remaining. The site visit typically is conducted by one or two NSF staff and two or three non-NSF consultants who are specialists in one or more of the research areas in the specific proposal. The purposes of these site visits are (1) to investigate in more detail questions that were raised by the Initial Evaluation Panel, (2) to evaluate the personnel as well as the research they are conducting and propose to conduct should they receive a grant, (3) to determine the institutional support and commitment, and (4) to acquire any additional information that might help the Final Panel (to be discussed later) and the NSF staff to make their evaluations. Following the visit each site visitor prepares a written report and anonymous copies of these reports are sent to the institution. Following the site visits, additional proposals may be declined. The remaining institutions then are invited to submit Addenda to their proposals in order to respond to the comments made by the Initial Evaluation Panel and the Site Visitors. A Final Panel of external senior computer and information scientists and engineers, representing all of the included research areas, is then convened. The remaining proposals are discussed by the panel, and each panelist prepares a written evaluation of each proposal using a form similar to that shown in Appendix 3. At the RI program director's discretion, the final panel may be composed of NSF staff. A similar review process is followed. After this merit-review process, the RI Program Director considers the reviews prepared by the Initial and Final Panels, the Site Visitors' reports and the Institutions' addenda. The RI Program Director then makes recommendations for awards and declinations, and efforts are made to complete the process by about July 1. PROPOSAL FORMAT Because typical proposals involve multiple investigators, the standard limit of 15 pages does not apply. However, a strict format and page limit, specified later in this announcement, is imposed on RI proposals. Research proposals not meeting these limits will be returned as inappropriate for the program. Eighteen copies of the proposal are to be submitted. Pages must conform to the formatting instructions described in Section II.C. of the Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 95-27). The original signed copy must not be bound but rather it must be stapled in the upper-left corner, and it must be printed on one side of the page. The remaining copies can be bound and/or printed on both sides of the page if desired. Except as indicated, all copies must contain the following sections and subsections. Additional subsections may be defined as appropriate. The major sections (A,B,...) are to be separated with labeled tabs. A. INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL 1. Cover page. The standard NSF cover page (Form 1207 in NSF 95-27), must be used and it must be the first page of the proposal. The original copy of each proposal must be signed by the Principal Investigator(s) and the Authorized Organizational Representative. 2. The National Science Foundation has an obligation to monitor the operation of its award process to assess patterns of gender, race, ethnicity, or disability among proposed Principal Investigators and Project Directors. To provide the NSF with the information it needs for this important task, Principal Investigators and Project Directors are requested to complete Form 1225 (see NSF 95- 27) and attach a single copy of this form following the cover page of the original copy of the proposal. It is important that this form not be included with the remaining copies of the proposal. Further, it is NSF policy that proposals that are not accompanied by a copy of this form cannot be processed. 3. Table of Contents with page numbers keyed to major sections of the proposal. B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Three-page limit) A summary of the remaining sections in the proposal. C. RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION (Five-page limit) Include a summary description of the requested experimental facilities and an indication of how the research infrastructure will be developed over the five year period of the grant. D. RESOURCE ALLOCATION (Five-page limit) Describe the way in which the requested funds will be used to acquire the experimental facilities needed to support the research projects, including: 1. The research equipment and computing facilities currently in the department or available to it for research. 2. A description of the equipment, software, maintenance and technical support requested for each year, including for equipment a representative manufacturer and model number if possible, with itemized costs and total cost. 3. Rationale for the requested equipment, software, maintenance and technical support. 4. Equipment and software maintenance costs per year, with method of computation. 5. A description of how the equipment will be accessed by the users, including details of the network/communication system for remote users. 6. A description of any space renovation needed to accommodate the requested equipment. Indicate the source of funds for the renovation, since RI funding is not normally granted for this purpose. 7. A description of the institutional cost-sharing. E. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE 1. A proposed management structure for managing the experimental facilities is to be included here. The plan should indicate not only how the proposed facilities would be managed but also how this research infrastructure would fit into and interact with the existing structure in the unit. (one-page limit) 2. Proposals involving inter-institutional sharing arrangements must include a copy of the arrangement. This must detail the administrative and financial responsibility of each institution, and it must be formally approved by appropriate scientific and administrative officers of each institution. (one-page limit) F. BUDGET 1. For each year of the grant and for all five years give the total project costs including the amounts requested from NSF, the institutional cost-sharing and other support. (one-page limit) 2. Using six appropriately labeled copies of NSF Form 1030 (see NSF 95-27), one for each year of the grant and one for the total for all five years, give the requested NSF budget. 3. In the case of a consortium, the budget information should be provided for each member institution of the consortium. 4. On a separate page, the following statement, signed by both the Principal Investigator(s) and the Authorized Administrative Officer of the institution: "We certify that the Institution will assume an increasing portion of the salaries and maintenance costs throughout the five-year period of the proposed grant, and we will ensure the continued effective operation of the facility for its useful research lifetime following the end of the grant." G. RESEARCH (Thirty-page limit) Description and explanation of the proposed associated research with appropriate scientific justification and literature references. This should demonstrate how the research depends upon both the experimental facilities proposed and the requested level of support with particular emphasis given to identifying new directions, expansions and extensions not possible without such support. The scientific merit of the research made possible by the requested support is a particularly important selection criterion. The proposed facilities may also be used in support of activities for integrating research and education. All proposals must contain sufficient detail for an evaluation of the intrinsic scientific merit of the proposed research. The intention is that this section of the proposal be structured by the proposing institution so as to present its case in the best possible light. Therefore, the structure and sub-sections within this section are not specified. All diagrams, references, bibliographies etc., are included in the 30 page limit. No appendices will be accepted. H. STAFF CREDENTIALS 1. In no more than two pages each, include the current curriculum vitae and a brief summary of the research accomplishments over the past five years, for each faculty member who will be directly involved in the use, development or formation of the research facility, or in the research projects. 2. Supply the information requested in Form 1239 of the Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 95-27) i.e., indicate all current and pending research support for each investigator listed in 1. above. 3. In no more than one page each, include the names and recent accomplishments of the senior individuals (if different than above) who will be responsible for the new equipment. I. RESULTS FROM PRIOR RI AWARD(s) (Two-page limit) If an institution has received RI funding in the past five years, whether an initial award or continuing award, a summary of that project including a compilation of the significant research results, with a listing of pertinent publications, is to be included. ADDENDUM FORMAT (Ten-page limit) Certain of the proposing institutions receiving a site visit will be invited to submit 10 copies of an Addendum addressing the issues raised by the Initial Evaluation Panel and by the Site Visitors. The Addendum may optionally include modified budget sheets, equipment and/or proposed research, as appropriate. The Addendum must not be a substitute proposal and should not duplicate material in the Proposal. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Non-Electronic) Eighteen copies of the proposal are to be submitted to: National Science Foundation - PPU Announcement No. 96-114 4201 Wilson Blvd Arlington, VA 22230 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The brochure Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 95-27), and NSF Guide to Program (NSF 95-138) are available at no cost from: Forms and Publication Unit Room P15 National Science Foundation Arlington, VA 22230 ORDERING BY ELECTRONIC MAIL OR BY FAX If you are a user of electronic mail and have access to Internet, you may order publications electronically. Internet users should send requests to pubs@nsf.gov. In your request, include the NSF publication number and title, number of copies, your name, and a complete mailing address. Printed publications may be ordered by FAX (703) 644-4278. Publications should be received within 3 weeks after receipt of request. For more information on the CISE RI Program, contact the program director at (703) 306-1981. Information on current projects supported under the RI Program is contained in the annual publication of the Office of Cross-Disciplinary Activities, Summary of Awards, copies of which are mailed to each PhD degree-granting computer and information science and engineering department. Additional copies of this publication are available from the Office upon request. Programs described in this publication are in Category 47.070 (Computer and Information Science and Engineering) in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. The Foundation provides awards for research in the sciences and engineering. The awardee is wholly responsible for the conduct of such research and preparation of the results for publication. The Foundation, therefore, does not assume responsibility for the research findings or their interpretation. The Foundation welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists and engineers, and strongly encourages women, minorities, and persons with disabilities to compete fully in any of the research and related programs described here. In accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin, or disability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the National Science Foundation. Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on an NSF project. See the program announcement or contact the program coordinator at (703) 306-1636. PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS The information requested on proposal forms is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process; to applicant institutions/grantees; to provide or obtain data regarding the application review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers as necessary to complete assigned work; and to other government agencies in order to coordinate programs. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF- 51, 60 Federal Register 4449 (January 23, 1995), "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 59 Federal Register 8031 (February 17, 1994). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of your receiving an award. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Herman G. Fleming Reports Clearance Officer Contracts, Policy, and Oversight National Science Foundation Arlington, VA 22230 The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment, or general information. This number is (703) 306-0090. APPENDIX 1 - GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS GENERAL In meeting its statutory responsibilities, NSF seeks to support the most meritorious research, whether basic or applied. Four criteria have been established by the National Science Board for the evaluation of proposals: 1. Research Performance Competence: This criterion relates to the capability of the investigator(s), the technical soundness of the proposed approach, and the adequacy of the institutional resources available. 2. Intrinsic Merit of the Research: This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the research will lead to new discoveries or fundamental advances within its field of science or engineering, or have substantial impact on progress in that field or in other scientific and engineering fields. 3. Utility or Relevance of the Research: This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the research can contribute to the achievement of a goal that is extrinsic or in addition to that of the research field it self, and thereby serve as the basis for new or improved technology or assist in the solution of societal problems. 4. Effect of the Research on the Infrastructure of Science and Engineering: This criterion relates to the potential of the proposed research to contribute to better understanding or improvement in the quality, distribution, or effectiveness of the Nation's scientific and engineering research, education, and manpower base. Criteria 1, 2, and 3 constitute an integral set that are applied in a balanced way to all research proposals in accordance with the objectives and content of each proposal. Criterion 1 is essential to the evaluation of the quality of every research proposal. The relative weight given to Criteria 2 and 3 depends on the nature of the proposed research: Criterion 2 is emphasized in the evaluation of basic research proposals, while Criterion 3 is emphasized in the evaluation of applied research proposals. Criterion 3 also relates to major goal-oriented activities that NSF carries out such as addressing areas of national need. Criterion 4 permits the evaluation of research proposals in terms of their potential for improving the scientific and engineering enterprise and its educational activities in ways other than those encompassed by the first three criteria. The results of prior NSF-supported research are taken into account for all proposals. CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CONFIDENTIALITY In our selection of panelists and visitors we make an effort not to include persons with conflicts of interest. However, if as a panelist or visitor you have any affiliation or financial connection with a proposing institution or person that might be construed as creating a conflict of interest, please bring it to our attention. NSF receives proposals in confidence and is responsible for protecting the confidentiality of their contents. For this reason, please do not copy, quote or otherwise use material from a proposal. The names of the proposing institutions, the principal investigator(s), as well as the panel members and site visitors are strictly confidential. It is the policy of the Foundation that reviews will not be disclosed to persons outside the Government, except that verbatim copies without the name or affiliation of the panelist or site visitor will be sent to the principal investigator. The Foundation considers reviews to be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) but cannot guarantee that it will not be forced to release reviews under this or other laws. INITIAL EVALUATION PANEL GUIDELINES The main purposes of the Initial Evaluation Panel are (1) to screen the proposals in order to eliminate those that are severely technically flawed, those that are inappropriate to the program and those proposals that, while of good quality, are not the strongest contenders, and (2) to provide feedback to the proposing institutions either for the preparation for a site visit or for a future proposal. The NSF staff will send proposals to you, as a panelist, with the expectation that you will read them prior to the panel meeting and write your own individual comments on a form similar to that shown in Appendix 2. You will have the opportunity to discuss each of the proposals that you have received with other panel members. Following this discussion period you may modify your own individual comments if you wish. For each proposal, one member of the panel will be asked to write a summary review describing the panel discussion of that proposal. In your comments at the panel meeting, if you believe that the proposal should be considered further in the review process, we ask that you emphasize questions that should be asked of the proposing institution at a site visit. If, on the other hand, you believe that a proposal should not be considered further, a forthright statement to that effect, together with your reasoning, will be most helpful. SITE VISITOR'S GUIDELINES Unlike the Initial Evaluation Panel and the Final Panel, you, as a Site Visitor, typically see only one proposal and proposing institution. Prior to the one-day visit you will be provided with the proposal and several anonymous written comments (Appendix 2) made by members of the Initial Evaluation Panel. Purposes of the site visit are (1) to examine in much more detail the same subjects that were treated by the Initial Evaluation Panel, (2) to try to resolve any questions or reservations that were raised by that panel, (3) to observe the proposing institution's research staff as well as its present and proposed research activities, and (4) to determine at first hand the planned degree of support to the project on the part of the institution. In addition to providing feedback to the institution, it is your task to provide the Final Panel with all of the additional information that you believe is needed to fully evaluate this proposal. Prior to actually beginning the site visit, there will be a short strategy caucus with the other site visitors and the NSF staff. At this meeting any issues will be discussed that the NSF staff members or site visitors consider relevant. At any time during the visit you are urged to ask for an additional caucus if you believe that it would be desirable. Following the visit, we ask that you prepare an approximately two- to four-page report on the proposal and the institution anonymous copies of this report will be provided both to the proposing institution and to the members of the Final Panel. The proposing institution may have the opportunity to prepare an Addendum to its proposal. This Addendum also will be made available to the Final Panel. In your report we ask that you address the questions and reservations that were raised by the Initial Evaluation Panel, and bring up all other issues-both positive and negative-that might be of relevance to the Final Panel and to the institution. FINAL PANEL GUIDELINES As a Final Panelist, you will have the maximum amount of information available to you on each proposal. Thus your reviews of the remaining proposals are weighted heavily by the NSF staff. You will be provided with the proposals, the written comments made by members of the Initial Evaluation Panel, the Site Visitor's reports and the Addenda. We request that for each proposal you consider all of this information in preparing your evaluation. Each proposal will be discussed by the panel, and following this you will be asked to prepare an independent written or oral review. Should a review that you prepare differ substantially from one made by an Initial Panelist or a Site Visitor, or with issues addressed in the institution's Addendum, we ask that you include a brief explanation of your position in order to provide the NSF staff with sufficient guidance to make its recommendations for awards and declinations. Appendix 2 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CISE RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Initial Evaluation Panel - FY- Review Form Proposal #: CDA- Institution: Principal Investigator(s): Title:______________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________ Verbatim but anonymous copies of this review will be sent only to the principal investigator/project director. Subject to this NSF policy and applicable laws, including the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552, and formal requests from Chairpersons of Congressional committees having responsibility for NSF, reviewers' comments and identities will be given maximum protection from disclosure. Some of the questions below call for a "yes" or "no" answer which you may wish to provide directly in the space below each series of questions. In addition, you may wish to provide a narrative answer to some or all of the questions, referencing them with an ordinal numeral, starting with 1. In any case, we will appreciate a narrative following each set of related questions; these narratives will provide important guidance both to the applicant institution and to the NSF staff. TECHNICAL EVALUATION Are the proposed projects of high quality? Are there major technical flaws in the proposal? Are some of the proposed projects unrelated to the main thrust of the proposal? Is the proposed research likely to have a significant impact on the field? Was a previous (if any) Institutional Infrastructure award successful? [Space is provided here for a response] PERSONNEL Does the institution have an adequate base of capable and productive personnel to carry out the proposed research? Do the investigators have an adequate track record of relevant and successful research? [Space is provided here for a response] EFFECT ON RESEARCH CAPABILITIES If funded, will this project have a strong impact on the research groups' experimental research capabilities? Is there a synergism present in the proposed projects or does the proposal consist of projects that could be funded better through separate individual research or equipment grants? Will it increase the participation in research by graduate students? [Space is provided here for a response] UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS Does the proposal adequately address at least one aspect of full participation of underrepresented groups in research activities? [Space is provided here for a response] GENERAL EVALUATION Please check one of the following actions for this proposal: 1. Highly recommend further consideration 2. Recommend further consideration 3. Do not recommend further consideration Please provide any additional information in the space below. [Space is provided here for a response] If your choice above was 3, then please skip the remaining questions and go to the signature line. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Does the proposal contain a good and realistic management plan? Are the issues of planning, equipment selection and installation properly addressed? Is the equipment appropriate to the research projects? Are the equipment choices realistic? Are maintenance and operational staff issues properly considered? [Space is provided here for a response] BUDGET Is the budget realistic and properly justified? Are the percentages of the budget that are applied to equipment, staff, faculty, students and maintenance appropriate? [Space is provided here for a response] INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT Is the environment at the institution(s) conducive to substantial growth in CISE experimental research if this project is funded? Is there adequate and appropriate cost sharing? [Space is provided here for a response] COMMENTS This space is for any additional comments that you may wish to supply. [Space is provided here for a response] Reviewer: ____________________________________________________________ _______________ Signature:____________________________________________ Date:_______________________ Appendix 3 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION CISE RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Final Evaluation Panel - FY- Review Form Proposal #: CDA- Institution: Principal Investigator: Title: ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ _ Verbatim but anonymous copies of this review will be sent only to the principal investigator/project director. Subject to this NSF policy and applicable laws, including the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552, and formal requests from Chairpersons of Congressional committees having responsibility for NSF, reviewers' comments and identities will be given maximum protection from disclosure. Strengths: [Space is provided here for a response] Weaknesses: [Space is provided here for a response] Additional Comments: [Space is provided here for a response] OVERALL RATING: [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Fair [ ] Poor Reviewer:___________________________________________________ _______________ Signature: Date: OMB 3145-0058 NSF 96-114 P.T.: 36, 34, 18 (Replaces NSF 95-125) K.W.: 1004000