Kansas DEPSCoR · Web viewKansas DEPSCoR Fiscal Year 2009 Submission Deadlines: September 2, 2008 for Pre-proposals* October 1, 2008 for Final Proposals* If successful, individual

PRELIMINARY REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Kansas DEPSCoR Fiscal Year 2009

Submission Deadlines:

September 2, 2008 for Pre-proposals*October 1, 2008 for Final Proposals*

If successful, individual proposals would be funded by:

Army Research OfficeOffice of Naval Research

Air Force Office of Scientific Researchand

State of Kansas Matching Funds

Kansas DEPSCoR Web Site:http://www.ksu.edu/DEPSCOR

* Dates based on anticipated DoD deadlines and subject to change when the DoD program announcement is released.

0

http://www.ksu.edu/DEPSCOR

Preface to Preliminary Request for Proposals

At the time this preliminary request is being issued, the DEPSCoR FY 2009 program announcement has not been released by the DoD. This preliminary request is based on the DoD FY2008 program and unofficial, preliminary information that has been provided by DoD. It may be necessary to modify the Kansas program if there are substantial changes in the DEPSCoR FY 2009 program when it is released

As in the past two years, we will base the selection on pre-proposals and only those researchers whose pre-proposals are selected will need to prepare full proposals. Pre-proposals will be submitted and reviewed electronically. No hard copy pre-proposals will be required or accepted. It is entirely possible that the DoD 2009 announcement will not be released until after the Kansas pre-proposal deadline so do not wait for the DoD announcement to prepare your pre-proposal.

Funding for DEPSCoR by DoD has varied considerably ranging from a high of over $20M nationally to a low of about $7M nationally. For the FY 2008 competition, the national funding was $15.7M. The funding for the FY 2009 program is very much unknown. We are working on the assumption that it will be similar to last year but the actual level is very uncertain and it is possible, although unlikely, that it will be zero. Kansas proposals were very successful at the national level for the FY 2008 program with a 100% success rate. On the average, over the past several years, the national level success rate is around 20% and the Kansas success rate is a little above this level. These success rates do not include the state level competition. Typically, we receive between 10 and 20 pre-proposals in Kansas and are allowed to submit 3-5 proposals to the national competition.

The DoD announcement regarding proposals funded in FY08 may be found at www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11785

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any member of the Kansas DEPSCoR Steering Committee. Contact information is provided in Appendix 2.

Byron W. JonesKansas DEPSCoR Director

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11785

Summary

As a designated DEPSCoR state, Kansas is expected to be eligible to submit a state proposal for consideration in the FY 2009 national competition. The state proposal is expected to consist of three to five individually fundable proposals which comply with the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research Announcement (DoD RFP) which is copied in its entirety in Appendix 4. A statewide competition is being conducted to select the individual proposals that will be included in the state proposal. The DoD may choose to fund all, none, or any combination of the individual proposals submitted from Kansas. This document, Kansas DEPSCoR Fiscal Year 2009, is the official request for proposals for this state competition (Kansas RFP).

Individual proposals must request a minimum of $350,000 of funds from DoD, including indirect costs. There is no maximum limit, but the DoD has indicated they are unlikely to select proposals requesting amounts in excess of $700,000 of DoD funds. In addition to the funding provided by DoD, a non-federal match of one dollar for each two dollars of DoD support is required. It is anticipated that the Kansas Technology Corporation (KTEC) will provide 75% of this required match and the submitting institution will be responsible for the remaining 25%.

Selection of proposals to be submitted from Kansas will be based on pre-proposals. In order to participate in the competition, a pre-proposal must be submitted and received electronically by 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time, September 2, 2008. All pre-proposals must be submitted electronically via the Kansas DEPSCoR website: http://www.ksu.edu/DEPSCOR. Late pre-proposals will not be accepted. Institutional signoff is not required for pre-proposals by the Kansas DEPSCoR program. However, individual institutions may require internal approvals. Please check with your institution on its policies before submitting a pre-proposal.

A selection panel will be formed by the Kansas DEPSCoR Steering Committee to determine which proposals will go forward from the state of Kansas.

Principal Investigators (PIs) for the pre-proposal that are selected for inclusion in the Kansas DEPSCoR will be notified on or about September 10, 2008. Complete proposals will then be due to the Kansas DEPSCoR Program on October 1, 2008. The complete proposal consists of a self-contained proposal fully conforming to the DoD RFP in Appendix 4. The budgets for these proposals must use the format specified in the Kansas RFP. The complete proposals must be fully executed by the submitting institution with all requested signatures.

If time permits, the complete proposals may be submitted to external reviewers for comments prior to submission to DoD. The Kansas DEPSCoR Director will work individually with PIs to address any changes needed prior to submission to DoD.


Checklists

These check lists are provided for convenient reference and are not intended to reflect the complete requirements for proposals or pre-proposals.

Pre-Proposal Checklist Completed Pre-Proposal Cover Sheet Form (Form A) Completed DoD Interaction and Interest Form (Form B) Completed EPSCoR Justification Form (Form C) Completed Current and Pending Support Form (Form D) Completed Budget Estimate Form (Form E) A three-page maximum, single spaced description of your proposed project. All of the above items submitted electronically via the Kansas DEPSCoR website by 5:00

p.m. Central Daylight Time, September 2, 2008. Be sure to read this entire request for proposals before submitting your pre-proposal.

Proposal Checklist Completed and Signed Proposal Cover (DoD RFP Appendix C) One Page Maximum Abstract (included in 25 page limit) Proposal Text (included in 25 page limit) Vitae for Key Personnel (included in 25 page limit) Budget using Form F (not included in 25 page limit) One additional copy of the above items. All of the above items must be received at the following location by 5:00 p.m. Central

Daylight Time on October 1, 2008. Items may be sent by mail or hand carried.

Kansas DEPSCoR ProgramEngineering Experiment Station1048 Rathbone HallKansas State UniversityManhattan, KS 66506-5202(Phone 785-532-5844)

Contents

1. Foreword 1

2. Eligibility 1

3. Pre-Proposal 13.1. Pre-Proposal Cover Sheet (Form A) 23.2. DoD Interaction and Interest (Form B) 23.3 EPSCoR Justification (Form C) 33.4 Current and Pending Support (Form D) 33.5 Previous DoD Funding (Form E) 33.6 Budget Estimate (Form F) 43.7. Narrative 43.8. Pre-Proposal Submission Requirements and Deadline 4

4. Proposal 54.1 Matching Support Requirement 64.2 Budget 64.3. Proposal Submission Requirements and Deadline 7

5. Evaluation and Selection 75.1. Review Panel 75.3. Notification and Modifications 8

6. Forms 8

Appendix 1. Forms and Instructions for Review Panel Members 20

Appendix 2. Kansas DEPSCoR Organization 28

Appendix 3. Successful Proposals from Previous Competitions 29

Appendix 4. Department of Defense Program Announcement 30

1. Foreword

All of the pre-proposal and proposal requirements are contained in Sections 1-4 and Appendix 4 of this document, the latter of which consists of the complete DoD program announcement. The remaining appendixes as well as Section 5 contain information that will be useful to the researchers in the preparation of a competitive proposal but do not contain specific requirements of the pre-proposal or proposal. Section 6 consists of the various forms that are needed.

The Kansas DEPSCoR program is overseen by a statewide Kansas DEPSCoR Steering Committee and the Kansas DEPSCoR Director. Contact information for the current members of this group is provided in Appendix 2. If you have questions about this program, contact the Director or any other member of the Steering Committee. Also, your feedback about this program and this request for proposals is encouraged so that we can improve it in future years. Please feel free to contact the Director or any Steering Committee member with your input.

2. Eligibility

Proposals must be submitted by a university in Kansas on behalf of researchers at the institution. Individual researchers at a university in Kansas may submit pre-proposals directly to the Kansas DEPSCoR Program.

The Kansas DEPSCoR Steering Committee considers that the DEPSCoR program is not the proper place for application for the continuation of a current DoD funded project. Such proposals will not be included in the state of Kansas proposal. Also, proposals from individuals with research programs that are currently well-funded by DoD will not be included. As a guideline, a single investigator with DoD funding of $200,000/year is considered well-funded. Individuals with well-funded DoD research programs may be included in a proposal submitted to the Kansas competition but may not receive salary from DoD or KTEC funds in the proposed project and may not serve as principle investigator for the proposed project.

Prior DoD funding that is no longer active does not affect eligibility.

Pre-proposals from individuals with current DoD funding should give careful attention to the EPSCoR criteria and explain how the existence of the this DoD funding is consistent with and supports EPSCoR goals in relationship to the proposed project.

Questions about eligibility should be directed to the Kansas DEPSCoR Director.

3. Pre-Proposal

1

The pre-proposal consists of Forms A-E and a brief description of the proposed project and your vitae.

3.1. Pre-Proposal Cover Sheet (Form A)

Use Form A and provide all of the information requested for the principal investigator and any other key personnel. Key personnel would include the names of other faculty members that may serve other than in an incidental capacity in the proposed project. The PI will be considered the point-of-contact unless indicated otherwise.

3.2. DoD Interaction and Interest (Form B)

The Kansas DEPSCoR program does not wish to submit proposals of unknown interest to DoD (shots in the dark) regardless of their technical quality. It is important to submit proposals that are of demonstrated keen interest to the DEPSCoR funding agencies. Generally, the only way to be confident a specific research topic is of interest to DoD and potentially fundable is to work closely with appropriate DoD program managers and related DoD personnel and, based on careful consideration of input from these individuals, tailor the research proposal to match the DoD interests. Getting to this end point requires in-depth interactions that may well span several years.

The DoD typically receives far more proposals submitted to the DEPSCoR program than it can fund. Consequently, there is a selection process within DoD to pick the proposals it will fund. The exact process within DoD has not been published, but it is clear that having a champion within DoD is an important factor in the success of a proposal. Not only does a proposal to DEPSCoR need to be directed at the specific mission requirements for the appropriate program manager(s), it must also generate sufficient interest that a program manager actively champions it in the internal DoD selection process. Form B provides the researchers the opportunity to document their interactions with DoD, DoD interests in the proposed research, and that DoD is likely to select the proposal if it is submitted. A strong record of interaction with DoD program managers and other appropriate DoD personnel is an important evaluation criterion.

Program manager visits are important, but such visits alone do not insure DoD interest. The narrative section of Form B should be used to show DoD interest in your proposed research. Pay careful attention to this narrative as it is your responsibility to document DoD interest, not the responsibility of the review panel to guess what might be of interest to DoD. Up to one additional page may be used for this narrative. The narrative part of Form B is to be single-spaced, a minimum font of 10, with margins of at least 1 inch. In addition to the narrative, up to five pages of exhibits may be attached to Form B to support the points made in the narrative. The exhibits are at the discretion of the

2

researcher. Examples might include letters of support from program managers or other appropriate individuals, transcripts of communications, copies of e-mail messages, etc. There is no particular formatting requirement for the exhibits. However, exhibits that are reduced to small size or that are otherwise difficult to read may be ignored in the review. Appropriate annotations on the exhibits are acceptable, but the allowed five pages of exhibits cannot be used to simply extend the narrative.

If you were the PI or involved as a key person on a previous DEPSCoR proposal that was selected in the Kansas Program and submitted to the DoD but was not funded, then it is very important that you address the interactions you had with the associated program manager(s) following that submission, the feedback you received from the program manager(s) as to why the proposal was not selected by the DoD, and what reasons there are to believe that the result will be different for the current proposal. This information is important even if the current proposal is on a different topic and involves different program managers from the previous proposal.

3.3. EPSCoR Justification (Form C)

In addition to DoD mission support, addressing “EPSCoR objectives” is part of the DEPSCoR program objectives. The State of Kansas provides a substantial portion of the required matching funds for Kansas proposals submitted to the DEPSCoR competition. This matching is provided as a result of the state’s commitment to EPSCoR. Consequently, addressing EPSCoR objectives is an important consideration for both the state and for DoD.

Form C is to be used to document how the proposed research project advances both the DEPSCoR objectives outlined in the DoD announcement in Appendix 4 and state EPSCoR objectives. Particular attention should be given to how it will advance research infrastructure in Kansas in terms of facilities and people. Up to one additional page may be used for this narrative. This narrative is to be single-spaced, a minimum font of 10, with margins of at least 1 inch.

3.4. Current and Pending Support (Form D)

Form D is to be filled out completely for the principal investigator and all other key personnel. Key personnel are defined as those individuals for whom you anticipate including a curriculum vitae in your full proposal, if selected. Current support is any funded project that is currently active in which the individual in question receives financial support or has time committed. Pending support is a funded research project for which a proposal has been submitted but has not yet been accepted or rejected for which the individual in question will receive financial support or has time committed. If any researcher knows that she or he will be submitting a proposal within the next several months, it should be included on the form even if a formal proposal has not been

3

submitted. If there are questions with respect to what should be reported on this form, NSF guidelines for reporting current and pending support may be used.

3.6 Budget Estimate (Form E)

Final proposals will require a total cost share of 50%. That is, for every dollar of DoD funding provided, a minimum of fifty cents of cost share from non-federal sources is required. It is anticipated that the Kansas Enterprise Technology Corporation (KTEC) will provide 75% of the required match and the remainder of the cost share will be the responsibility of the submitting university. The allocation of KTEC match to equipment and non-equipment portions of the budget is somewhat complex and is explained in detail in Section 4. To avoid this complexity at the pre-proposal stage, the budget estimates should be based only on direct costs and should not include any facilities and administration costs (overhead). It should be understood, however, that budgets for full proposals will include overhead as described in Section 4.

Form E is used to provide estimated budget information for the review panel. Form E does not request information for every budget item but rather focuses on those categories likely of interest to the review panel. The estimated total project cost is likely to be greater than the sum of the individual items listed.

The estimated budget information provided on Form E is not binding. However, this estimate is expected to be a good faith estimate of the budget that will be included in the complete proposal if your pre-proposal is selected. Budgets submitted for complete proposals that are not reasonably consistent with the preliminary budget estimate may be rejected by the DEPSCoR Steering Committee.

Researchers unfamiliar with the preparation of budgets are strongly encouraged to contact the contracts and grants office at their university for assistance in preparing the budget estimate.

3.7. Narrative

Use up to three pages to write a narrative that describes the project you plan to propose. It is very important to understand that the review panel cannot be experts in every single topic proposed. While the panel members will be individuals recognized as technically competent in their respective areas of research and familiar with DoD research in general, it is entirely possible that no member of the panel will have technical knowledge with regard to your specific area of research. Therefore, it is very important to prepare your narrative in a form that is readily understandable by a wide technical audience. Avoid the use of technical jargon, complex formulations and derivations, and symbols or terminology not widely recognized.

4

This narrative will be the primary means of evaluating the technical merit of your proposed research. You should explain the nature of the research you proposed to conduct, why it is important, why your approach will lead to the good results, and the overall plan for your proposed project. You may reference information contained in Forms A-E.

This narrative is to be single-spaced, a minimum font of 10, with margins of at least 1 inch. Exceeding the allowed three-page limit may disqualify your pre-proposal.

3.8. Vitae

Include a vitae up to two pages in length for the principal investigator, co-principal investigators, if any, and other key personnel.

3.9. Pre-Proposal Submission Requirements and Deadline

Forms A through E and the narrative and vitae are to be submitted electronically via the Kansas DEPSCoR website at http://www.ksu.edu/DEPSCOR. Total file size may not exceed 4.0 Mbyte; much smaller file sizes are recommended.

It is strongly recommended that last minute submissions be avoided as it is possible that the receiving website will become overloaded if too many submissions arrive at the same time. It is entirely the responsibility of the proposal submitter to anticipate such delays and plan the submission accordingly. As a minimum, you should allow adequate time for your submission to be confirmed so that you can resubmit it if, for some reason, submission is not successful. You should allow up to one business day for confirmation to be received.

All pre-proposal must be submitted electronically via the Kansas DEPSCoR website. No paper copies or other forms of submissions will be accepted. All submissions must be received by 5:00 p.m. September, 2008, Central Daylight Time. Late submissions will not be accepted.

4. Proposal

A complete proposal will only be accepted from the PIs who, based on the Kansas pre-proposal competition, are asked to submit a proposal by the Kansas DEPSCoR Director. Notification will be made as soon as the review panel makes their selection. Notification should be expected on or about September 10, 2008.

The DoD announcement in Appendix 4 describes the technical requirements for the proposal submitted from any state. A proposal submitted to the Kansas DEPSCoR program shall consist of a proposal written in accordance with the requirements for individual proposals as described in the DoD announcement and addressing all of the

5

http://www.ksu.edu/DEPSCOR.

appropriate topics identified in that announcement. The proposal you submit will not be edited or refined prior to submission to DoD. It should be a complete, high-quality, self-contained proposal and should fully address all of the technical, fiscal, and organization aspects of your proposed project.

A high quality technical proposal is required in order to be funded by DoD. However, technical quality alone is not a sufficient criterion to merit funding by DoD. Most DoD funding agencies are mission driven. While individual program managers may have considerable discretion as to the research projects funded, these projects must directly support detailed, narrowly defined missions. Regardless of the quality of proposed research or even the personal interests of the program manager, it is highly unlikely that research will be funded unless it is clear that it is closely aligned with these defined missions. This requirement applies to most DoD research funding and DEPSCoR is no exception.

The Kansas DEPSCoR program does not wish to submit proposals of unknown interest to DoD (shots in the dark) regardless of their technical quality. It is important to submit proposals that are of demonstrated keen interest to the DEPSCoR funding agencies. Generally, the only way to be confident a specific research topic is of interest to DoD and potentially fundable is to work closely with appropriate DoD program managers and related DoD personnel and, based on careful consideration of input from these individuals, tailor the research proposal to match the DoD interests. Getting to this end point requires in-depth interactions that may well span several years.

The proposal selection process based on the pre-proposals is intended to ensure that proposals selected from Kansas are, in fact, of high interest to DoD and will have a good chance at being funded by DoD. However, the interaction with DoD should not stop when your pre-proposal is selected. If you are selected to submit a full proposal, you should make every effort to work with the relevant DoD program manager and other relevant personnel to ensure that you are submitting not only a very high quality technical proposal, but also a proposal of keen interest and importance to DoD with a high probability of funding.

In addition to DoD mission support, addressing “EPSCoR objectives” is part of the DEPSCoR program objectives. The State of Kansas provides a substantial portion of the required matching funds for Kansas proposals submitted to the DEPSCoR competition. This matching is provided as a result of the state’s commitment to EPSCoR. Consequently, addressing EPSCoR objectives is an important consideration for both the state and for DoD.

Your proposal should be a complete, self-contained proposal prepared in accordance with the requirements of the DoD announcement in Appendix 4. The requirements and the format stated in the DoD announcement are not repeated here. However, special note is made of the emphasis that the DoD announcement makes on single investigator awards.

6

While proposals involving more than one investigator are allowed, the project must be tightly integrated and focused on a single research project. The DoD does not want proposals from groups of investigators working on loosely associated research. Proposals submitted to the Kansas DEPSCoR competition should be of the former nature. Proposals of the latter nature will not fare well in this competition.

4.1. Matching Support Requirements

The DEPSCoR program requires a matching commitment of one dollar from non-federal sources for each two dollars of DoD support. It is anticipated that the State of Kansas, through the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation (KTEC), will provide 75% of the required match. The remaining 25% must be provided by the proposing institution. This institutional match requirement may be met with funds from external non-federal sources, from cash allocations by the university, from paid personnel release time, from waived indirect costs on the DoD portion of the budget, and from indirect costs on university sources of matching. Indirect costs may not be charged on the match provided by KTEC and the waived indirect costs associated with this support may not be used for matching purposes. The State of Kansas match must be used first for equipment purchases. If the State of Kansas match exceeds the total equipment purchases, then the remainder may be used for other expenses.

4.2. Budget (Form F)

The budget should be completed using the format shown on Form F. All of the justifications required by the DoD program announcement in Appendix 4 should be included in the text of the proposal and are included in the 25 page limit. The budget form itself is not included in this 25 page limit. Any needed explanations (as opposed to justifications) should be attached to Form F and are not included in the 25 page limit. In addition, the following instructions must be observed.

A separate Budget Form F should be completed for each year of the three-year project with the first year starting June 1, 2009. In addition, a summary Budget Form F should be completed for the entire three-year project. The actual start date will depend upon when a contract is received from the Department of Defense. Even though the DoD announcement leaves considerable latitude as to the exact format, a common format is being requested to facilitate consistency in the Kansas submission.

The budget is divided into four parts. Column A is the cost to the Department of Defense. Column B is the cost covered by the State of Kansas match as described in Section 4.1. Column C lists any other non-federal and non-university sources of matching funds. The actual sources of the funds listed in column C should be identified. Column D lists matching provided by the University. Signed documentation of all matching commitments will be required prior to submission of the proposal to DoD (see section IV.C. of the DoD announcement in Appendix 4).

7

Special care should be exercised to ensure the matching requirements are met. The total Kansas match on line 11, column B, of the three-year summary budget must be exactly 0.375 times the total cost to DoD on line 15, column A. The total match from other sources, line 11, column C, plus line 13 column D, must be at least 0.125 times the total cost to DoD on line 15 column A. These matching requirements apply only to the three-year summary budget. The matching for a given year may deviate from these requirements as long as the three-year totals meet the requirements.

As noted in Section 4.1, equipment must be included in the Kansas match column (B) to the extent possible. If the total cost of equipment is greater than the amount required on line 11, column B, of the summary budget, then the excess equipment costs may be placed in the DoD column (A). If the total equipment cost is less than the amount required on line 11, column B, of the summary budget, then other cost items may be included in the Kansas match column (B). Equipment purchased with funds from the University (column D) or other match sources (column C) do not factor into these calculations or requirements.

The total cost to DoD, line 13, column A, on the three-year summary budget, must be at least $350,000. There is no upper limit but DoD typically has not funded proposals with costs to DoD exceeding $700,000 and proposals exceeding this amount are unlikely to be reviewed favorably in the Kansas DEPSCoR selection process.

Subcontracts to non-DEPSCoR states are not allowed. Subcontracts to collaborators in other DEPSCoR states may be allowed. However, such a subcontract may affect the amount of funding available from KTEC for the Kansas match. Generally, the Kansas match will be reduced in proportion to the fraction of the money going to another state. Contact the Kansas DEPSCoR Director for guidance on the budget if you plan to include a subcontract.

4.3. Proposal Submission Requirements and Deadline

The proposal must contain all of the components described in Section 4 and its subsections. One paper copy requires original signatures. One additional paper copy is required. Both copies should be printed single sided on 8.5 by 11 inch paper. Neither copy should be stapled or bound.

The two copies described above must be delivered no later than 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time, October 1, 2008 to

Kansas DEPSCoR ProgramEngineering Experiment Station1048 Rathbone HallKansas State UniversityManhattan, KS 66506-5202

8

(Phone 785-532-5844)

The proposal may be delivered by hand, express mail, or other means. If not delivered by hand, the use of express mail with tracking capability is strongly recommended. It is totally the responsibility of the person submitting the proposal to ensure that the proposal arrives before the deadline. Regardless of the reason, exceptions will not be made for late proposals in order to be fair to all participants. Submissions by fax, e-mail, or other means, other than as stated above, will not be accepted. Incomplete proposals may be rejected.

5. Evaluation and Selection

As described previously, a review panel will evaluate pre-proposals and will select the proposals to be included in the Kansas submission to DoD. Specific information regarding this review and selection follow.

5.1. Review Panel

The review panel, based on guidelines provided by the Steering Committee, evaluates the pre-proposal, including DoD interest, support of EPSCoR objectives and other information provided in the pre-proposal package. The Steering Committee provides the evaluation criteria and the weighting factors to be used by the review panel. Copies of the forms and review instructions, including evaluation criteria, that will be provided to the review panel are presented in Appendix 1. People submitting pre-proposals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with these criteria and prepare their pre-proposals accordingly. The review panel will have access to this entire request for proposals for their reference should they desire to refer to it, but will only be expected to use the information in Appendix 1 to guide their review and selection.

A review panel member that has a conflict of interest with respect to any proposal will be asked to excuse himself or herself from participating in the review of that proposal.

5.2. Notification and Modifications

As soon as the review panel completes its selection, each principal investigator will be notified as to the status of his or her pre-proposal. The review panel may make suggestions to be included in the full proposal. The Kansas DEPSCoR Director will work with each principal investigator regarding these recommendations. In some cases, the review panel may make its selection of a pre-proposal subject to a mandatory change or other requirement. The principal investigator must then incorporate the requests if the proposal is to be included in the Kansas submission.

6. Forms

9

With the exception of the forms required for the full proposal that are contained in Appendix 4, all of the forms required for the pre-proposal and proposal are included in this section.

10

Form APre-Proposal Cover Sheet

Proposal Title:

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (only one name):

_____________________________________________ _____________________ (Title) (First Name) (Middle Initial) (Last Name) (Area Code & Phone No.)

____________________________________ _________________________ (Department/Division) Fax No.

____________________________________ _________________________ (University) E-mail Address ______________________________________________________________________ (Street Address)______________________________________________________________________ (City) (State) (Zip Code)

Other Key Personnel (if any)Name: ____________________________________________ University: ____________________________________________ Department/Division: ____________________________________________ Phone, Fax, E-mail: ____________________________________________

Name: ____________________________________________ University: ____________________________________________ Department/Division: ____________________________________________ Phone, Fax, E-mail: ____________________________________________



11

Form BDoD Interaction and Interest

Project Title:

Principal Investigator:

Program Manager Visits: List specific program manager visits made in the past 24 months. Use additional pages if necessary.

Date(s): ________________________________________________________________

Location(s): _____________________________________________________________

Name(s) and Title(s) of Individual(s) Visited:_______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Date(s): ________________________________________________________________ Location(s): _____________________________________________________________


Date(s): ________________________________________________________________ Location(s): _____________________________________________________________


12

Narrative of DoD Interaction and Interest: Use this page and up to one additional page for a narrative describing your interaction with DoD, explaining how you have used that interaction to develop a pre-proposal that addresses DoD needs and interests, and providing justification that DoD is likely to fund your proposal (single-spaced, a minimum font of 10, 1 inch margins minimum). In addition, you may attach up to five pages of additional exhibits to this form to support your narrative (e.g., letters of support from DoD, copies of e-mail messages, etc.).

13

Form CEPSCoR Justification

Project Title:


Use this page and up to one additional page for a narrative describing how your proposed research program and the proposed funding will advance research infrastructure in Kansas and otherwise support the goals of the EPSCoR program (single spaced, a minimum font of 10, 1 inch margins minimum).

14

Form DCurrent and Pending Support

Investigator:

Support: __ Current __ Pending __ Submission Planned in Near Future __ TransferProject/Proposal Title:

Funding Agency (Agencies):

Amount: $ _____________ Dates: from ___________ to ____________ Location of Project:Person Months Per Year Committed to Project: CY _____ AY _____ Su ____Check Here if DEPSCoR Project ___ Check Here if Other EPSCoR Program ___Support: __ Current __ Pending __ Submission Planned in Near Future __ TransferProject/Proposal Title:






Amount: $ _____________ Dates: from ___________ to ____________ Location of Project:Person Months Per Year Committed to Project: CY _____ AY _____ Su ____Check Here if DEPSCoR Project ___ Check Here if Other EPSCoR Program ___pport: __ Current __ Pending __ Submission Planned in Near Future __ TransferProject/Proposal Title:


Amount: $ _____________ Dates: from ___________ to ____________ Location of Project:Person Months Per Year Committed to Project: CY _____ AY _____ Su ____Check Here if DEPSCoR Project ___ Check Here if Other EPSCoR Program ___

15

Use additional copies of this sheet as needed.

Form EPreliminary Budget Estimate

Project Title:


Please provide estimates for the following items (direct cost only). Note that estimates are not requested for all budget items and, thus, the total cost is likely to be more than the sum of the individual items. The estimates are to include funds you anticipate requesting from DoD and the State of Kansas (KTEC) but should not include university or other matching.

Faculty Salaries $_________________________

(List faculty members(s) ___________________________________receiving salary.) ___________________________________

___________________________________

Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Fellows $_________________________

Other Salary and Wages $_________________________

Total Equipment Cost $_________________________

(Itemize major items.) $_________________________________$_________________________________$_________________________________$_________________________________

Travel $_________________________

Sub-awards $_________________________

Consultants $_________________________

Estimated total direct cost $_________________________ for proposed project

16

17

Form F Budget

This form only applies to complete proposals. The budget format on the following page should be used. A separate budget should be prepared for each year plus a summary budget for the combined three-year budget.

Column A should contain all costs to be paid from DoD funds.

Column B is for the matching funds provided by the State of Kansas through KTEC. See the instructions in Section 4.2 regarding the requirement to use these funds for equipment. Indirect costs may not be charged on any funds in this column regardless of how they are used and are not shown on the budget. The total State of Kansas match for the three-year summary budget must be exactly 0.375 times the total cost to DoD on line 13 of column A. This requirement does not apply to budgets for individual years.

Column C is for matching funds provided by other non-federal, non-university sources. Indirect costs normally are not charged on these funds and are not shown on the budget. If you plan to include matching in column C and wish to include indirect costs, please contact the Kansas DEPSCoR Director for guidance.

Column D is for matching provided by the university. See Section 4. 1 for guidelines on what items constitutes acceptable matching support.

Line 12 of column A should be reduced by any indirect cost the institution is waiving. If any indirect costs are waived, a footnote should be added indicating the amount by which the indirect costs are being reduced.

The amount on line 12 of column D should the standard institution indirect costs for the items listed above in column D plus any indirect costs that are waived in line 12 of column A. If waived indirect costs are included, then a footnote should be added indicating the waived indirect costs included in the amount shown. Waived indirect costs from columns B and C are not to be included in line 12 of column D

The total University support on line 13 of column D plus the total Other Matching funds on line 11 of column C of the three-year summary budget must total to at least 0.125 times the total cost to DoD on line 13 of column A. This requirement does not apply to budgets for individual years.

18

BudgetSummary 6/1/2009 to 5/31/2011

(A) (B) (C) (D)DoD Kansas OtherUniversity

Match Match Match1. Salaries and Wages a. Jane Doe (PI)

x time x mo. Summer $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$x time x mo. AY $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$

b. John Doex time x mo. Summer $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$x time x mo. AY $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$

c. Graduate Research Assistantx time x mo. CY $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$

d. etc.

2. Fringe Benefits a. xx% of __ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ b. xx% of __ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ c. etc.

Subtotal Salary Wages and Benefits $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$

3. Supplies and Materials $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ (Itemize by Category)4. Equipment (Itemize) $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$

5. Travel $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$

6. Publication and Report Costs $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$

7. Sub-Award Costs $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ (Provide Detail)8. Consultant Costs $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ (Provide Detail)9. Communication Costs $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$

10. Other Direct Cost $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ (Provide Detail)11. Total Direct Cost $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ (Sum Lines 1through10)

12. Indirect Costs $$$$ $$$$ (State Rate and Basis)13. Total Cost $$$$ $$$$ (Lines 11+12)

19

Appendix 1

Forms and Instructions for Panel Members

All pre-proposals will be made available electronically to members of the review panel as soon as they are received. Upon closure of submission, the Kansas DEPSCoR director will send, by e-mail, a list of the submitted proposals upon which each member may indicate his or her technical familiarity with the research topic. Based on this input, each pre-proposal submitted to the Kansas DEPSCoR Fiscal Year 2008 program will be assigned to several members of the review panel for evaluation. Each review panel member is asked to read the proposals he or she is assigned prior to the meeting of the panel and assign tentative scores. These scores may be refined during the joint panel meeting. At least 48 hours prior to the meeting, panel members should submit their scores for the assigned proposals via the DEPSCoR website so that they are available for review by other panel members. Prior to the panel meeting, each panel member should review the other submissions for the pre-proposals assigned to him or her.

Each proposal is to be evaluated in four categories: technical merit, Department of Defense (DoD) interest, DoD interaction, and applicability to EPSCoR goals.

A two-step process will be used at the review panel meeting. In the first step, the panel members will review the individual tentative scores assigned to each proposal and agree upon the “panel scores” for the proposal. In the second step, the panel will take a second look at the top pre-proposals, especially those which may be on the boundary of being selected. After this second look, the three pre-proposals for the Kansas DEPSCoR submission will be selected.

It is expected that the pre-proposals selected for the Kansas submission will be those with the highest total score with the exception that the panel may set minimum required scores in any of the three areas should it choose to do so. The panel may also make the selection of a proposal contingent on specific changes, including changes to the budget. The panel may also recommend non-mandatory changes that will strengthen a proposal. Specific instructions for the evaluation in each of the three areas follow. All evaluation forms may be completed on the Kansas DEPSCoR website http://www.ksu.edu/DEPSCOR.

Technical Merit

It is recognized that review panel members cannot be experts in the specific areas of every proposal. Consequently, the PIs have been instructed to write the pre-proposal narrative such that it can be understood by a general technical audience and not for the technical expert in the specific area of research. It is also recognized that the panel members are experienced researchers and are quite capable of assessing aspects such as

20


organization and planning, clarity of the presentation, reasonableness of budget, etc., even for proposals where they may not be familiar with the details of the science and are encouraged to include these factors in their assessment.

Each individual assigned a given pre-proposal should fill out the Technical Merit form and assign a numerical score between 0 and 100 for that pre-proposal. Guidelines for the numerical scores are as follows. Please base rankings on national standards in the sub-field.

100 – Excellent: Probably will fall among the top 10% of proposals in the sub-field; highest priority for support. Truly outstanding proposal.

80 – Very Good: Probably will fall among top 1/3 of proposals in this sub-field; should be supported.

60 – Good: Probably will fall in the middle 1/3 of proposals in this sub-field; worthy of support.

40 – Fair: Probably will fall among the lowest 1/3 of proposals in this sub-field.

20 – Poor: Proposal has serious deficiencies; should not be supported.

The panel member may add comments explaining the assigned score as he or she sees fit.Suggestions for strengthening the proposal are especially encouraged.

Department of Defense Funding Probability

This area is probably the most difficult aspect to accurately evaluate and likely the most important factor in the ultimate success of the proposals submitted to DoD. If it were possible to accurately evaluate the probability of DoD support, this part of the evaluation would have the highest weighting factor. Because of the difficulty in making an accurate assessment in this regard, the weighting is one an equal footing with technical merit. Weighting factors are defined later.

The DoD interest evaluation is divided into two parts: visits with DoD managers and other interaction, and overall DoD interest. An explanation of the evaluation in each area follows.

DoD Interaction

An important goal of the Kansas DEPSCoR program is to develop not only the physical infrastructure to become nationally competitive for DoD funding but to also develop contacts and working relationships between Kansas researchers and the DoD. It is the strong opinion of the Steering Committee that this interaction and establishment of good

21

working relationships is essential to becoming competitive in the long-term. Consequently, there is a separate evaluation of the effort the researchers have made to develop this working relationship. The panel member evaluating a proposal should fill out the DoD Interaction section of the form and assign a numerical score between 0 and 100. The following benchmarks are provided as guidelines for the numerical scores. It should be understood that there is more than one effective path to developing a good working relationship and the review panel members are free to use their judgment as to how the efforts described by the researchers compare to these benchmarks. The evaluation should focus on the efforts in the past 24 months; however, these efforts can certainly be based on foundations established previously. To the extent possible, evaluation should be based on documented actions and not just claims. The panel members are encouraged to add comments explaining the rating and to provide feedback to the researchers as to how they could have improved in this regard.

100 – Excellent: Ongoing interaction with program manager(s)1 over an extended period of time including one or more visits, demonstrated effective communication with the program manager(s) before and after the visit(s), and good evidence the researcher has used the information obtained with this interaction to tailor the proposal to the needs and interests of the program manager(s).

80 – Very Good: One or more visits with program manager with significant follow up and interaction. Or, no recent visit but good evidence of extensive interaction and use of that interaction to tailor the proposal to the needs and interests of the program manager.

60 – Good: Some documented interaction with DoD through a program manager visit or other communications but limited evidence the researchers has used input from the program manager(s) to direct the proposal to the manager’s needs and interests.

40 – Fair: Use of broad agency announcements or other indirect means to “interact” with DoD with an explanation of how this indirect interaction has been used.

20 – Poor: Minimal effort made to document any interaction with DoD.

DoD Interest

The evaluation of DoD interest in funding a proposal must be based primarily on the judgment of the panel members. Certainly, there will be considerable overlap in

1 The term “program manager” is used in the generic sense and refers to an individual that is in a position within DoD to make funding decisions regarding proposals received in typical competitive programs. The actual title may vary somewhat from agency to agency.

22

evaluating the interaction with DoD and evaluating the DoD interest in funding the proposal, and those proposals with high scores in one category are likely to be high in the other category. However, the two categories are not exactly the same. The key to DoD interest is the presence of one or more champions within DoD that are willing and able to actively promote the proposal during the internal DoD review process. Panel members should keep in mind that some program managers freely and enthusiastically document their support of a proposal through letters of endorsement and even commitments to championing. Others will provide little such documentation even though they may be very supportive of the research and the researcher. Nevertheless, the panel members need to evaluate, based on all information in the proposal and not just Form B, the probability that DoD will fund the proposal. This judgment should be based on information and documentation provided in the proposal. Panel members are not to base this judgment on their own opinions as to what DoD may or may not be interested in funding unless a panel member has very specific knowledge about specific DoD interest, or lack thereof, for the specific topic of the proposal. It is the principal investigator’s responsibility to document this interest and it is not the panel’s responsibility to know what DoD wishes to fund.

The panel member evaluating a proposal should fill out the DoD Interest section of the form and assign a numerical score between 0 and 100. The following benchmarks are provided as guidelines for the numerical scores. It should be understood that there is more than one way to document DoD interest in funding a proposal and the review panel members are free to use their judgment as to how the information provided by the researchers compares to these benchmarks. To the extent possible, evaluation should be based on documentation and not just claims. The panel members are encouraged to add comments explaining the rating and to provide feedback to the researchers as to how they could have improved in this regard.

100 – Excellent: Clear documentation that a proposal not only addresses research of high priority to one or more program managers but that the program manager(s) will actively champion the proposal in the DoD competition (for example, a letter from a program manager saying the proposed research is very high priority and she or he will work diligently to see that it is funded by DoD).

80 – Very Good: Clear documentation that a proposal addresses specific research of high priority to one or more program managers.

60 – Good: Documentation of reasonable interaction with DoD but with limited documentation of DoD interest in the specific research proposed.

40 – Fair: Use of broad agency announcements or other indirect means to document DoD interest in the proposed research.

20 – Poor: Minimal effort made to document any interest by DoD.

23

Support of EPSCoR Goals

The overall goal of the national, cross-agency Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is to develop in those states that have traditionally received a relatively small portion of the federal research support the ability to compete effectively for this funding. The State of Kansas has strongly endorsed EPSCoR and this support is reflected in the substantial support it provides for the matching requirements at the state level through the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation. As part of the EPSCoR program, proposals submitted to DEPSCoR should support this overall goal to be consistent with both State of Kansas and DEPSCoR priorities.

Proposals that are scientifically sound, that have a high probability of being funded by DEPSCoR, and that are well designed to lead to a research program that has demonstrated good potential for continued DoD support outside the DEPSCoR program are inherently supportive of EPSCoR goals. Such proposals have established a good foundation showing support of EPSCoR goals. There are a number of additional ways in which proposals can support EPSCoR goals as explained below.

Research funding for a junior (e.g. non-tenured) faculty member that is serving as the principal investigator is an important contribution to the development of research infrastructure in the state if that person is able to use this funding to initiate a high quality, long-term research program. Consequently, proposals with junior faculty members as PIs generally have received higher EPSCoR scores than proposals submitted by senior faculty, everything else being the same.

Research proposals from established, successful faculty members may also be supportive of EPSCoR goals if the project also incorporates junior faculty as investigators and the project will serve as a base for mentoring these junior faculty members and promoting the development of their research programs. However, the DoD emphasis on single investigator proposals should not be overlooked. Any multiple investigator proposals must be clearly focused on a single topic with the work of all of the investigators well integrated and focused on this topic. The DoD announcement makes it clear that they are not interested in funding loosely associated groups of researchers that are working on loosely associated topics. Proposals that are primarily focused on mentoring and not the research are not likely to be funded by DoD. Thus, the mentoring of junior faculty needs to be an inherent and needed part of the planned research project rather than the project being molded so as to be able to claim mentoring.

Proposals from established faculty members that are proposing to develop new directions for their research programs where there is good potential for DoD support are also supportive of EPSCoR goals. However, such claims should be examined carefully. It truly needs to be a new research path in a new area and recognizable as such by knowledgeable individuals both inside and outside the sub-field. Simply pursuing the

24

next logical step from current or previous research is not a new direction even if it involves research of a different nature.

The development of physical infrastructure, especially the purchase or development of major equipment items, is supportive of EPSCoR goals. Equipment that is purchased simply for the purpose of the proposed project and that has little demonstrated further use is not particularly supportive of EPSCoR goals. However, equipment that that will allow continued competitiveness in securing DoD funding beyond the proposed project does support EPSCoR goals. This support of future research is not necessarily limited to the project investigators, but may include other researchers in the state as well. The highest support of EPSCoR goals with respect to equipment and other physical infrastructure development occurs when there is a clear, well structured plan to develop physical infrastructure to support one or more areas of research of interest to DoD, and the role the proposed acquisitions play in that plan are clearly defined and important.

The support and training of graduate students has been identified by DoD as one method of documenting infrastructure development in DEPSCoR proposals. Consequently, such support and training is a valid method of documenting support of EPSCoR goals.

Specific benchmarks have not been developed for rating support of EPSCoR goals, as most proposals will be supportive of EPSCoR goals to some degree in several different aspects. It is the opinion of the Steering Committee that the panel members, given the above examples, are qualified to make sound judgments as to what does and does not constitute good support of EPSCoR goals. However, it is the responsibility of the investigators to state and clearly document how their proposals support EPSCoR goals. The panel members are not expected to guess or read between the lines to make this determination. To the extent possible, the evaluation should be based on documentation and not just regurgitation of the above points in the proposal. For example, if the PI claims to be an established researcher that will be mentoring junior faculty, there should be documentation that the individual has a well funded and highly regarded research program and there is a well structured plan for effective mentoring.

The following guidelines are provided for assigning specific scores for support of EPSCoR goals on the evaluation form.

100 – Excellent: Clearly demonstrated strong support of EPSCoR goals in several aspects.

80 – Very Good: Documentation shows strong support of EPSCoR goals in at least one aspect with some support in other aspects as well.

60 – Good: Some documentation showing support of EPSCoR goals.

40 – Fair: Limited documentation of support of EPSCoR goals.

25

20 – Poor: Minimal evidence of support of EPSCoR goals.

Conflict of Interest

A review panel member with a conflict of interest for a pre-proposal should not participate in the discussion and evaluation of that pre-proposal either individually or in evaluation by the panel as a whole. Any member of the review panel that discovers a conflict of interest with any pre-proposal is asked to notify the Kansas DEPSCoR Director immediately so that appropriate reassignments can be made. The Director will inform the entire panel of the conflict of interest at the time the pre-proposal is addressed by the panel as a whole. Anyone that served as the graduate advisor or postdoctoral advisor of any key project personnel is considered to have a conflict of interest. Anyone who has collaborated within the past 48 months on a publication or project with any key project personnel is considered to have a conflict of interest. In addition, an affiliation, association, or connection that may potentially influence the reviewer’s ability or desire to conduct an objective assessment is considered a conflict of interest.

Evaluation Form

All reviews are to be completed and submitted on the Kansas DEPSCoR website. A copy of the form found on the website follows for your information.

26

Review Panel Proposal Evaluation

Proposal Number: _______

Proposal Title:____________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

Principal Investigator: _____________________________________________________

Institution: _________________________________

Evaluation Summary

Technical Merit Score _____ x 1.00 weighted score _____

DoD Interaction Score _____ x 0.50 weighted score _____

DoD Interest Score _____ x 0.50 weighted score _____

EPSCoR Goals Score _____ x 0.75 weighted score _____

Project Total Score _____

Technical Merit Score ________ Reasons for Score:

Comments to Improve Proposal:

27

_______________________________________________________________________ DoD Interaction Score ____________ Comments:

_______________________________________________________________________ DoD Interest Score ____________ Comments:

_______________________________________________________________________ EPSCoR Goals Score ____________ Comments:

_______________________________________________________________________ Attach continuation sheets if needed.

28

Appendix 2Kansas DEPSCoR Organization

Kansas DEPSCoR is one of the programs in the overall state of Kansas EPSCoR program which is funded by various federal agencies and the State of Kansas. The Kansas DEPSCoR program is administered by the Kansas DEPSCoR Director with guidance and assistance from the members of the Steering Committee. Any questions about the program may be addressed to the Director, the Assistant to the Director, or any Steering Committee member.

Kansas DEPSCoR Director

Byron W. Jones, Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Programs, Director of the Engineering Experiment Station, Kansas State University, Phone 785-532-5844, Fax 785-532-7810, E-mail <[email protected]>.

Assistant to the Director

Mary Tolbert, Phone 785-532-5844, Fax 785-532-7810, E-mail < [email protected]>.

Steering Committee Members

Walter Horn, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Wichita State University, Phone 316-978-3410, Fax 316-978-3307, E-mail <[email protected]>.

Gary J. Minden, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Kansas, Phone 785-864-4834, Fax 785-864-0387, E-mail <[email protected]>.

Chris R. Ross, Professor of Anatomy and Physiology, Kansas State University, Phone 785-532-4507, Fax 785-532-4557, E-mail <[email protected]>.

Chris M. Sorensen, University Distinguished Professor of Physics, Kansas State University, Phone 785-532-1526, Fax 785-532-6786, E-mail <[email protected]>.

Michael Van Stipdonk, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Wichita State University, Phone 316-978-7381, Fax 316-978-3431, E-mail <[email protected]>.

George Wilson, Associate Vice Provost for Research, Takeru Higuchi Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Kansas, Phone 785-864-5152, Fax 785-864-5396, E-mail <[email protected]>.

29

Appendix 3

Successful Proposal from Previous Competitions

The Kansas DEPSCoR program does not make available copies of proposals submitted previously. However, the Kansas DEPSCoR web site, http://www.ksu.edu/DEPSCOR, contains abstracts from successful proposals from previous competitions. Principal investigators for those proposals are not obligated to provide other people copies of their proposals. However, many are willing to share information about their proposals and other guidance needed to be successful. You are encouraged to contact them.

30


Appendix 4

Department of Defense Program Announcement

Currently, the FY08 DEPSCoR program announcement is included for your reference. It will be replaced with the FY09 program announcement when that announcement is made.

A few highlights are listed below. However, it is important to read and become familiar with the entire DoD announcement and prepare proposals in accordance with this announcement.

1. Each state is allowed to submit up to 3 proposals (likely to go to 5 for FY09).

2. Each proposal must request not less than $350,000 of federal (DoD) funds. Matching requirements are in addition to this amount.

3. There is no maximum per proposal that can be requested, but history shows that DoD rarely makes DEPSCoR awards of over $700,000 of federal funds.

4. There is no maximum limit on the total funding that may be requested by a state.

5. The matching fund requirement of 1 state dollar per 2 federal dollars as in previous years remains.

6. Projects are for three years and the budget should be prepared with a starting date of June 1, 2009.

7. Each proposal, whether single investigator or multiple investigator, should be fully integrated to address one focused technical issue.

31

PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DoD)

FISCAL YEAR 2008

DEFENSE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH (DEPSCoR)

Broad Agency Announcement No.: W911NF-07-R-0011

FULL PROPOSAL DEADLINE:Must be received no later than 4:00 PM Eastern Time Friday, 26 October 2007

Army Research Office

Air Force Office of Scientific Research

Office of Naval Research

In cooperation with the Office of

32

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Laboratories and Basic Sciences

OVERVIEW INFORMATION

Agency Name(s) - This Department of Defense program will be administered through the Army Research Office (ARO), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR).

Funding Opportunity Title - Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR)

Announcement Type - This is the initial announcement.

Funding Opportunity Number - W911NF-07-R-0011

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) - 12.431, Basic Scientific Research (ARO)

Dates - Proposals are due no later than 4:00 PM Eastern Time, Friday, 26 October 2007

I. FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

The Department of Defense (DoD) announces the fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR). The program is executed under the policy guidance of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Laboratories and Basic Sciences [ODUSD (LABS)] and administered through the Army Research Office (ARO), Office of Naval Research (ONR), and Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) with the cooperation of the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) State Committees. The DoD plans to award fiscal year 2008 DEPSCoR appropriations through this announcement. ARO, ONR, and AFOSR (henceforth referred to as "agencies") will award research grants based on this announcement. It is anticipated that each agency will receive an equal portion of the FY2008 funds available to support proposals accepted under this BAA.

The program statute for DEPSCoR (section 257 of Public Law 103-337, as amended) states that DEPSCoR's objectives are to: (1) enhance the capabilities of institutions of higher education ("universities") in eligible States to develop, plan, and execute science and engineering research that is competitive under the peer-review systems used for awarding Federal research assistance; and (2) increase the probability of long-term growth in the competitively awarded financial assistance that universities in

33

eligible States receive from the Federal Government for science and engineering research. Consistent with these long-term objectives of building research infrastructure, the DoD intends to competitively make, and fund from fiscal year 2008 appropriations, multiyear awards for research and for associated graduate education of scientists and engineers in areas important to national defense.

DEPSCoR funds may be used to enhance existing or develop new research capabilities in support of DoD research goals. Proposals may contain requests for equipment necessary for the completion of the proposed research. General-purpose computing facilities and purely instructional equipment are not appropriate for DEPSCoR funding, but requests for funding for specialized computers required for specific DEPSCoR research programs are appropriate. DoD recognizes that the infrastructure aspect of DEPSCoR may lead to the purchase of equipment that has utility beyond the specific research effort proposed. Funds under DEPSCoR may not be used for construction or modification of buildings or facilities; therefore, proposals for the construction or refurbishment of buildings will not be considered under this BAA.

DEPSCoR may fund single investigator or multiple investigator research proposals and, to a lesser extent, center of excellence research proposals. Multiple institution or multiple investigator research projects that are not fully integrated to address one focused technical issue are not normally funded and are discouraged. Given the intent of the DEPSCoR program to build infrastructure, DEPSCoR can provide more funding for critical research-infrastructure elements than traditional, single-investigator awards. Therefore, to support the proposed research, a DEPSCoR proposal appropriately may request more funding for infrastructure elements than a single-investigator proposal. For example, funding for graduate student education, for acquiring or refurbishing instrumentation, and for postdoctoral fellows or faculty needed to conduct the proposed research are appropriate infrastructure expenditures. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Laboratories and Basic Sciences, in particular, recognizes student training as an important component of the program. The awards are to be forward funded, generally for activities not to exceed a three-year period. In this way, DEPSCoR contributes to the States/Territories' goals of developing new research capabilities and infrastructure while simultaneously supporting DoD research goals.

Administrative costs incurred by the EPSCoR State Committees, associated with either the preparation of proposals or related to the administration of grants resulting from this solicitation are the responsibility of the EPSCoR State Committees and are nonreimbursable by DoD. State Committees are encouraged to include proposal sections from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (as determined by the Secretary of Education to meet requirements of 34 CFR Section 608.2) and from Minority Institutions (HBCU/MIs) (as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 2323 (a)(1)(C)) in their proposal recommendations. However, no funds are specifically allocated for HBCU/MI participation.

34

The Army, Navy, and Air Force publish their specific research areas of interest in separate Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs). DEPSCoR research projects may address any of the technical areas listed in the respective Army, Navy, and Air Force BAAs.

BAAs and program descriptions are available on-line at the following addresses:

U.S. Army Research Office:http://www.aro.army.mil (select “For The Researcher” followed by “Funding Opportunities,” see BAA W911NF-07-R-0003)

Office of Naval Research:http://www.onr.navy.mil (select "ONR Science and Technology Departments")

Air Force Office of Scientific Research:http://www.afosr.af.mil (select " Broad Agency Announcement BAA 2007-1" on Homepage)

Proposals to perform research in listed technical areas, or other areas important to national defense, will be considered. For detailed information regarding technical goals, individuals preparing proposals are advised to consult these announcements and to contact DoD program managers listed therein to explore possible mutual interest before submitting proposals.

Sufficient funds are not available to meet all research and infrastructure needs of the universities in all DEPSCoR States/Territories. It is the responsibility of the EPSCoR State Committee to encourage and identify proposals which are most likely to: (1) enhance the capabilities of universities to become more competitive under the peer-review systems used for awarding Federal research assistance; and (2) increase the probability of long-term growth in DoD research support for focused areas of interest within each State. Awards will be restricted to universities doing or demonstrably capable of doing research of interest to DoD. Each separately fundable proposal identified by the States/Territories may be used for support of equipment and either a single investigator, multiple investigators, or to a lesser extent, center of excellence research proposal in a focused research area.

Although the DEPSCoR is a multi-agency program with multiple contacts for technical discussion, one DoD agency (ARO, AFOSR, or ONR) must be listed as the "lead reviewer" of each separately fundable proposal of the State's identified proposals. If a lead reviewer (i.e. agency) is not listed, one will be assigned. If possible, each proposal should also list the specific Division/Directorate in the agency's organization requested to review each proposal (listed in the agency's BAA), and the Technical

35

http://www.afosr.af.mil/

Area/Program Manager. The listed lead reviewer will have primary responsibility for reviewing that separately fundable proposal of the State’s identified proposals. Other agencies may choose to do a full review of a proposal for which they are not the lead reviewer in order to determine their possible interest in funding or co-funding that proposal.

II. AWARD INFORMATION

Through this DEPSCoR competition, the DoD intends to award approximately $5.9 million for FY 2008, subject to the availability of funds. These funds will be awarded via grants made by the ARO, ONR, and AFOSR. Awards are generally for a period not to exceed three years. Proposals must request a minimum of $250,000 and may not exceed $2 million.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicants

Only universities in EPSCoR States and Territories with degree granting programs in science, mathematics, and/or engineering are eligible to submit proposals for DEPSCoR research grants. Proposals must first be reviewed and approved by the respective EPSCoR State Committee. Each State Committee will decide which DEPSCoR proposals submitted to it will be identified to DoD for consideration (see limits described below). Proposals not identified through an EPSCoR State Committee will be rejected. Universities in 23 States and Territories (listed below and henceforth referred to as the States/Territories) are eligible to receive awards under this announcement.

STATES / TERRITORIES CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEPSCoR AWARDS

Alaska Arkansas Delaware Idaho Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire North Dakota Oklahoma Puerto RicoRhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee US Virgin

IslandsVermont West Virginia Wyoming

Only the 23 EPSCoR State Committees listed at Appendix A are currently eligible under the DEPSCoR program authority and may identify proposals for consideration in response to this announcement. Awards made as a result of this announcement will be

36

limited to universities in States/Territories that are eligible under the DEPSCoR program authority at the time awards are announced.

Should additional States/Territories become eligible in the period between publishing of this BAA and the announcement of selections for award, submission of their proposals must conform to the guidance in this BAA including timely receipt. Should proposals be received from States/Territories in anticipation of being eligible and those States/Territories are determined not to be eligible by the time of the announcement of selections, their proposals will be considered non-responsive and excluded from consideration. The decision to submit a proposal while eligibility is being determined is discretionary on the part of the offerors. The Government accepts no liability for proposal preparation costs or for any other expenses incurred should States/Territories not be determined eligible by the time of the announcement of selections.

Eligible NSF EPSCoR State Committees may identify up to three (3) separately fundable proposals requesting support from DoD for a 36-month period. See Section IV.2.

2. Cost Sharing/Matching

To maximize the DEPSCoR program objectives, all DEPSCoR awards require a minimum, non-federal cost sharing or matching of one-to-two (i.e., at least one dollar from State, institutional, and/or private sector sources to match each two dollars of DEPSCoR support being provided). Matching funds may support items such as salaries, indirect costs, operating expenses, or new equipment.

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Address to Request Application Package

This DESPCoR announcement may be accessed from the ARO website http://www.aro.army.mil/baa under Funding Opportunities, Open Broad Agency Announcements (BAA). Paper copies may be obtained by writing to US Army RDECOM Acquisition Center, RTP Division, AMSRD-ACC-R, PO Box 12211, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2211, or by leaving a message on the ARO Voice Mailbox at (919) 549-4375.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

EPSCoR State Committee Requirements - EPSCoR State Committees must submit an executive summary not exceeding ten (10 pages) identifying up to three (3) separately fundable proposals and relating the proposed research to both DoD needs and State goals for stimulating competitive research capabilities. The executive summary

37

http://www.aro.army.mil/baa

should also indicate if the three (3) proposals are being submitted electronically or in hard copy; proposals should not be submitted by both methods. Proposals not identified by EPSCOR State Committees as one of the three (3) submitted for consideration shall be ineligible. The executive summary should be submitted in hard copy to U.S. Army Research Office, ATTN: AMSRD-ARL-RO-EV (Dr. Kurt Preston), P.O. Box 12211, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2211, and be received by the proposal submission deadline specified in Section IV.3.

Each separately fundable proposal must be complete and self-contained to qualify for review. The DoD is interested primarily in the research and related science and engineering education and the research related infrastructure development that the research facilitates. For this reason, the proposal must adequately describe the effort so that judgments can be made on relevance to DoD research goals and the infrastructure benefit.

Proposals approved by each state committee may be submitted electronically through Grants.gov, or in hard copy. All proposals, electronic and hard copy, should be no longer than 25 pages, not counting the three SF 424 (Research and Related) (R&R) forms and Financial Portion described below. Page size should be 8 ½ inches with 1-inch margins; font size should not be smaller than 10 point. Hard copy proposals should be submitted on white paper and be bound or stapled separately. Separate attachments such as brochures or reprints will not be accepted. Proposals submitted in whole or in part by electronic media (computer disk or tape, facsimile machine, electronic mail, etc.) will not be accepted.

Advanced Preparation for Electronic Submission - Electronic proposal submission through Grants.gov requires advanced preparation. There are several one-time actions your organization must complete before it will be able to submit applications through Grants.gov. It may take two or more weeks to complete the actions before being able to submit proposals. Well before the DEPSCoR submission deadline, you should verify that the persons authorized to submit proposals for your organization have completed those actions. Go to http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp for further information. Use the Grants.Gov Organization Registration Checklist, which may be accessed at http://www.grants.gov/applicants/register_your_organization.jsp to guide you through the process. Should you have questions relating to the registration process, system requirements, how an application form works, or the submittal process, you may contact Grants.gov at 1-800-518-4726 or by email at [email protected]. Please note that Grants.gov does not currently support the new Microsoft Vista Operating systems. See Section VIII.3.

Submitting the Application

For Electronics Submission - Application forms and instructions are available at Grants.gov. To access these materials, go to http://www.grants.gov, select “Apply for

38

http://www.grants.gov/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.grants.gov/applicants/register_your_organization.jsp

http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp

Grants,” and then select “Download Application Package.” Enter the CFDA number 12.431, Basic Scientific Research (ARO). You could also enter the funding opportunity number for this announcement, W911NF-07-R-0011. Follow the prompts to download the appropriate application package. There are three application packages available for this announcement number, each identifying a different lead reviewing agency (ARO, ONR, or AFOSR) under “Competition ID.” The package you select to download will determine which agency reviews your proposal.

For Hard Copy Submission – The original and six (6) copies of the signed original must be delivered to the ARO. The original must be marked “Original.” Plastic covers (clear or otherwise) or binders shall not be used. Mailing and commercial carrier addresses are listed under Section IV.5.

Application Forms – Specific forms are required for submission of a proposal. The application forms will not count against the 25-page limit. The forms are contained in the Application Package available through the Grants.gov application process. For hard copy submissions, the forms are available for downloading at http://www.aro.army.mil/forms/forms2.htm under Forms - Broad Agency Announcements (BAA). Complete all required fields (those marked with an asterisk) unless otherwise specified. Under Grants.gov, utilize the “pop-up” instructions on the form. To activate the instructions, turn on the “Help Mode” in Grants.gov. (The “Help Mode” is turned on by the icon with the pointer and question mark. This is located at the top of the form.)

SF 424 (R&R) (Mandatory) - The SF 424 (R&R) form is to be used as the cover page for all proposals. No other sheets of paper may precede the signed SF 424 (R&R) for a hard copy proposal. The form must be signed and dated in block 19 by an authorized representative for the hard copy submission. Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) usernames and passwords serve as “electronic signatures” when your organization submits applications through Grants.gov. By using the SF 424 (R&R), proposers are providing the certification required by 32 CFR Part 28 regarding lobbying as contained in Section VI. 2.

Research & Related Other Project Information (Mandatory) - The project abstract, project narrative, and budget discussed below must be attached to this form under the Grants.gov application process. For hard copy submissions, these documents will be placed after this form.

Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile (Optional) - Provide information on any Co-Investigator for the project under “Profile – Senior/Key Person” section of the form. All applicable blocks must be completed.

39

http://www.aro.army.mil/forms/forms2.htm

Content

Project Abstract - The abstract should be no more than one page and will count against the 25-page limit. Attach the project abstract to Field 6 on the Research and Related Other Project Information form.

The abstract shall provide a concise description of the proposed research. It should also provide recommended proposal reviewer information in the following format:

(a) Lead Reviewer to Receive the Proposal: Specify ARO, ONR, or AFOSR(b) Division/Directorate, and(c) Technical Area/Program Officer

To assist in directing the proposal to the most appropriate component of the reviewing agency, refer to the list of research websites cited in Section I of this announcement.

Project Narrative - The project narrative will count against the 25-page limit. Attach the project narrative to Field 7 on the Research and Related Other Project Information form.

The project narrative of each separately fundable proposal shall contain the following:

(a) Describe in detail the research to be undertaken. State the objectives and approach and the relationship to the state of knowledge in the field and to comparable work elsewhere. Include an appropriate bibliography and list of literature citations. Discuss the nature of the expected results.

(b) Describe how this effort relates to and advances the research infrastructure development goals of the university or the State.

(c) Describe plans for the education of graduate students in the specified research areas of interest. Estimate the number of graduate students and of other technical personnel who will be directly associated with the project.

(d) Describe plans for the involvement and interaction with DoD, other federal laboratories, industry or other existing research centers of excellence.

(e) Describe facilities available for performing the proposed research and any additional facilities or equipment that the organization proposes to acquire at its own expense.

(f) Provide a rationale for each item of equipment requested in the budget and how

40

this equipment will contribute to the infrastructure building goals of the proposal.

(g) Identify other parties who will receive the proposal or who will partially fund the proposed effort or activity.

(h) Furnish a brief vita for key personnel critical to the research, including senior investigators. Provide short biographical sketches and list relevant publications.

(i) Furnish a list of current and pending support for the principal investigator and other senior personnel. The list should include the project title and brief description, name of the organization or agency funding the work or requested to perform the work, award amount or dollar value, period of performance, and breakdown of the time required of the principal investigator and other senior personnel.

Financial Portion (Budget) - The financial portion will not count against the 25-page limit. Attach the financial portion to Field 11 on the Research & Related Other Project Information form.

The financial portion of each separately fundable proposal should contain a cost estimate for the proposed effort that is sufficiently detailed by element of cost for meaningful evaluation. The budget must include the period-of-performance (with a proposed June 1, 2008 start date), a total estimated cost of the project, and the amount and source of project funding (i.e., funds requested from DoD, any funds provided under current grants or contracts with DoD or other federal agencies, and non-federal funds to be provided as cost sharing or matching). The estimated project costs must be shown in total as well as broken down for each year of the program to show the following cost elements:

(a) Salary Costs: For all employees, indicate the amount of time being charged to this proposed project (e.g., number of months) and show resulting costs based on current or projected salary and benefits.

(b) Supplies and Materials: Estimate costs of supplies and materials.

(c) Equipment: Describe any equipment to be acquired and the basis of cost estimates. Costs should be based on recent quotations from manufacturers or distributors.

(d) Travel Costs: Estimate the required amount of travel and state its relationship to the research. List the proposed destinations and basis of cost estimates.

(e) Publication and Report Costs: Estimate the costs of publishing and reporting research results.

41

(f) Subaward Costs: Support the estimate of subaward work by indicating the specific items or portion of the work to be subawarded, type of subaward anticipated, name of subawardee, and a detailed cost summary.

(g) Consultant Costs: State the planned daily consultant fee and travel expenses, the nature of the consulting effort, and the reason consultants are required to complete the effort.

(h) Communication Costs: Estimate communication costs (i.e., long distance telephone calls, telegrams, and postage) not included in overhead.

(i) Other Direct Costs: Itemize other anticipated direct costs such as rental for computers or other equipment, facility usage fees, and tuition remission. Unusual or expensive items should be fully justified.

(j) Overhead Rates: State whether or not a recent predetermined or provisional overhead rate has been negotiated by a federal agency and, if so, when and by which federal agency. Always state the basis on which the overhead rate is calculated (i.e., "salaries and wages" or "total costs") and the period of the grantee's fiscal year. Include a copy of any current indirect rate agreement or provide a URL if this document is available from the internet.

(k) Total Costs: Give the total costs, year by year, and the cost for the entire proposed grant period.

(l) Cost Sharing or Matching Plans: Construct a table showing the cost sharing or matching share committed to this DEPSCoR proposal in the following categories: State, institutional, and private sector. In each category, show the amount and nature of the planned expenditure share (e.g., State appropriation, equipment, faculty release time for research, etc.). A signed statement of commitment regarding the cost sharing or matching funds described above should be obtained from the appropriate State, institutional, and/or private sector officials.

3. Submission Dates and Times

Proposals must be received no later than 4:00 PM Eastern Time on October 26, 2007, whether submitted electronically or in hard copy. Exceptions:

For electronic submission, should the site of Grants.gov not be operational on the due day and be unable to receive the proposal submission, the deadline is extended to the same time of the first day when the site is in operation.

For hard copy submission, in case the operation of the designated agency is interrupted and the agency is unable to receive the proposal, the deadline is extended to the same time of the first day when the agency is in operation.

42

Application Receipt Notices and Consequence of Late Submission

For electronic submission – The applicant will receive a confirmation page upon completing the submission to Grants.gov. This confirmation page is a record of the time and date stamp that is used to determine whether the proposal was submitted by the deadline. A proposal received after the deadline is “late” and will not be considered for an award. The applicant will receive an e-mail within a few hours of submission indicating that the proposal has been validated by Grants.gov. This means that all the required fields have been completed. (Please consider that the initial submission may be “confirmed” but the delay for the validation could be as long as a couple of hours.) The third notice the applicant will receive is an e-mail from the designated agency to which the electronic proposal was submitted, to acknowledge receipt of the proposal. The e-mail is sent to the authorized representative for the applicant institution approximately ten days after the proposal due date.

For hard copy submission – An applicant that submits a hard copy proposal will receive an e-mail approximately ten days after the proposal due date to acknowledge receipt of the proposal. The e-mail is sent to the authorized representative for the applicant institution. A hard copy proposal arriving at the designated Government agency after the deadline is “late” and will not be considered for an award, except for cases in which there is acceptable evidence to establish that the proposal:

(a) Was delivered to the designated agency and was under the agency’s control by the deadline of 4:00 PM Eastern Time on October 26, 2007; or

(b) Was sent to the agency’s listed mailing address by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail by October 24, 2007.

4. Funding Restrictions – DEPSCoR funding may not be used for general-purpose computing facilities and purely instructional equipment, and for construction or modification of buildings or facilities.

5. Other Submission Requirements

Hard copy proposals must be sent to ARO at one of the following addresses:

Use this address for commercial carriers: Use this address for U.S. Mail:U.S. Army Research Office U.S. Army Research OfficeATTN: AMSRL-RO-RI (07-R-0011) ATTN: AMSRL-RO-RI (07-R-0011)4300 South Miami Boulevard P.O. Box 12211Durham, NC 27703-9142 Research Triangle Park, NC

43

Phone # (919) 549-4234, Dr. Kurt Preston 27709-2211

Note that proposals delivered by commercial carriers are considered "hand carried" and no exceptions can be made which allow such proposals to be considered if, for any reason, they are received after the deadline. Offerors are advised that some proposals responding to past announcements that were sent via commercial carriers were delayed during shipment and arrived after the deadlines, typically by one or two days. To decrease the possibility that proposals delivered by commercial carriers will arrive after the deadline and thus be ineligible to compete, offerors are encouraged to schedule delivery to occur well before the deadline date.

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

1. Criteria

The primary evaluation criteria (of equal importance to each other) will be:

1. The scientific and technical merits of the proposed research.

2. The potential contributions of the proposed research to the defense missions of the participating agencies.

3. The likelihood of the proposed effort to advance the research infrastructure goals of the university or State by developing new or enhancing existing research capabilities and to broaden the university research base in support of national defense.

4. The potential to contribute to the education of future scientists and engineers in disciplines critical to the DoD mission.

Other evaluation criteria (of less importance than 1, 2, 3, and 4 but of equal importance to each other) are:

5. The qualifications, capabilities, experience, and past research accomplishments of the proposed Principal Investigator, team leader and other key personnel who are critical to achieving the objectives of the proposal.

6. The proposed involvement and interaction with DoD or other federal laboratories, industry, or other existing research centers of excellence.

7. The realism and reasonableness of cost, cost sharing or matching, and availability of funds.

44

2. Review and Selection Process

Cognizant DoD technical program managers will review separately fundable proposals of the States/Territories' identified proposals that are in their technical areas of expertise. Based on evaluations by DoD program managers using the seven criteria above, separately fundable proposals will be selected for funding by the participating agencies. The agencies will reconcile any overlap and coordinate complementary efforts to ensure the broadest impact with the funds available. Each of the participating agencies will award its portion of the available DEPSCoR funds in areas important to its mission. The acquisition offices of the agencies will conduct negotiations directly with the institutions of higher education selected for award and negotiations may result in funding levels less than that proposed in a given separately fundable proposal.

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

Award recommendations for FY 2008 DEPSCoR funds will be announced on or about March 21, 2008. Each Committee will be responsible for notifying all the participating institutions of higher education in its State of the award recommendations. Proposals should cite June 1, 2008 as the proposed start date.

VI. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

1. Award Notices

Successful proposers will receive a separate notice (acceptance letter or e-mail) stating that an application has been selected (before the award is in place). The notification letter or e-mail must not be regarded as an authorization to commit or expend funds (except at the recipient’s own risk, to the extent that the recipient elects to charge up to 90 days of preaward costs, as permitted under paragraph 32.25(d)(2)(i) of 32 CFR Part 32). The Government is not obligated to provide any funding under a DEPSCoR award until a Government Grants Officer signs the grant award document.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Lobbying

The certification at Appendix to 32 CFR Part 28 regarding lobbying is the only certification required at the time of proposal submission for a grant award. By signing and submitting the required cover page (SF 424 R&R), the prospective awardee is providing this certification. This certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000.

45

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.

(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Equipment

In keeping with the provisions of 31 USC 6306, title to all equipment acquired via a DEPSCoR award shall vest with the university without further obligation to the Government.

Central Contractor Registration

In accordance with DOD policy, prospective grantees must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database prior to award of a grant. By submission of an offer resulting from this BAA, the offeror acknowledges the requirement that a prospective grantee must be registered in the CCR database prior to the award, during performance, and through final payment of any grant resulting from this BAA. The CCR may be accessed at http://www.ccr.gov. Assistance with registration is available at 1-888-227-2423.

46

http://www.ccr.gov/

3. Reporting Requirements

Financial reports are required in accordance with Part 32 of the DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations (32 CFR Part 32). Financial reports shall be submitted on the SF 270, SF 272 and the SF 269/SF 269A (final). The instructions for these financial reports are agency-specific and will be specified in the award document signed by the Grants Officer.

Annual and final technical reports are also required. The instructions for these technical reports are agency-specific and will be specified in the award document signed by the Grants Officer.

VII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Please submit all questions regarding this BAA to the following email address: [email protected] and include “W911NF-07-R-0011” in the subject line. Questions should be concise and reference the relevant part and paragraph of the BAA. Questions should be submitted by close of business Wednesday, October 17, 2007. All questions and responses will be posted on a Question and Answer section under the BAA Announcement at the ARO web site http://www.aro.army.mil/baa as they become available. All questions will be answered and made public within 3 business days after submission. Please take caution when submitting questions containing proprietary or sensitive information.

VIII. OTHER INFORMATION

1. Planning Grant Applications

EPSCoR State Committees of the 23 eligible States/Territories may be invited (subject to the availability of funds) to submit a planning grant application for the purpose of improving the State’s ability to compete in future year DEPSCoR solicitations.

2. Security Requirements

Classified Submissions: Classified white papers and proposals are not expected. DO NOT submit a proposal that includes contents derived from existing classified information. However, in instances where an offeror has incorporated information into a proposal that may be technology/security sensitive, the ARO Security Office shall be contacted at (919) 549-4356 for guidance and further information prior to the proposal's

47

http://www.aro.army.mil/baa


submission. Each page of the submitted proposal presumed to contain the sensitive information will be marked "POTENTIALLY TECHNOLOGY SENSITIVE" at top and bottom.

Awards made from successful proposals with any classification will be subject to security review and will require a DD Form 254 to be attached to the resulting award document. If personnel or facilities require a security clearance, information about obtaining a clearance can be obtained by calling the Defense Security Service at 1-888-282-7682 or visiting http://www.dss.mil/index.html. Recipients of awards with classified material shall also appoint a security officer who shall (1) be responsible for all security aspects of the work performed under the award, (2) assure compliance with the National Industry Security Program Operating Manual (DODINST 5220.22M), and (3) assure compliance with any written instruction from the ARO Security Officer. Awardees who do not follow the guidance above or who do not obtain the necessary personnel and/or facility security clearances within six months of award may be terminated for default.

3. Microsoft Vista and Word 2007 Incompatibility with Grants.gov

Please note that Grants.gov does not currently support the new Microsoft Vista Operating System. The PureEdge software used by Grants.gov for forms is not compatible with Vista. Additionally, the 2007 version of Microsoft Word saves documents with the extension “.DOCX” (as a new default). Grants.gov cannot process Microsoft Word documents with the “.DOCX” extension at this time. When submitting attachments created with Microsoft Word 2007 to Grants.gov, please ensure the document is saved using “Word 97-2003 Document (*.doc)” format. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please e-mail the Grants.gov Contact Center at [email protected], or call 1-800-518-4726.

Grants.gov is currently reviewing the Vista operating system to adopt standard security configurations by 1 February 2008 in compliance with OMB’s memorandum-http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-11.pdf.

48

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-11.pdf


http://www.dss.mil/index.html

APPENDIX A:

DEFENSE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO

STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH (EPSCoR)

ELIGIBLE STATE COMMITTEE,

PROGRAM DIRECTORS OR CHAIRS(As Of 15 August 2007)

STATE: DIRECTOR OR CHAIR:

Alaska Peter SchweitzerUAF Department of Anthropology310 Eielson BuildingP.O. Box 757720Fairbanks, AK 99775Main telephone: 907- 474-7288Fax: 907 474-7453E-mail: [email protected]

Arkansas John G. HehrNSF-EPSCoR Project Director Old Main 525University of ArkansasFayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-3684

49

STATE: DIRECTOR OR CHAIR:

STATE: DIRECTOR OR CHAIR::

Delaware Stephen G. BorleskeAssociate DirectorDelaware Biotechnology InstituteUniversity of Delaware15 Innovation Way, Room 281Newark, De 19711(302) 831-3430

Idaho Jean'ne ShreeveEPSCoR/IDeA Project DirectorUniversity of IdahoP.O. Box 442343Moscow, ID 83844-2343(208) 885-6215

Kansas Kristin Bowman-JamesProject DirectorKansas NSF EPSCoR222 Strong Hall1450 Jayhawk BoulevardUniversity of KansasLawrence, KS 66045-7535(785) 864-3096

Kentucky John W.D. ConnollyProject Director325 McVey HallUniversity of KentuckyLexington, Kentucky 40506-0045Ph: (859) 257-8316

Louisiana Michael KhonsariNSF Project DirectorLouisiana EPSCoRLouisiana Board of RegentsP.O. Box 3677Baton Rouge, LA 70821Phone: (225) 342-4253Fax: (225) 342-3371

50


Maine Michael J. EckardtVice President for ResearchUniversity of Maine5703 Alumni Hall, Room 209Orono, ME 04469-5703(207) 581-1506

Montana Mark YoungProject Dir. of EPSCoR Program/Assoc. Prof. MSU - Bozeman307 Ag BioScience Building, MSUBozeman, MT 59717(406) 994-5158

Nebraska F. Fred Choobineh, P.E., Director, Nebraska EPSCoR Professor University of Nebraska-Lincoln Industrial & Mgmt Syst En Work W192 NH Lincoln NE 68588-0557 Work (402)472-8946 [email protected] Delivery Address: [email protected]

Nevada Penny AmyAssociate Vice Chancellor5550 w. Flamingo rdSuite C1Los Vegas, NV 89103702-889-8426

20

19


New Hampshire John AberOffice of the Vice President for Research and Public ServiceThompson Hall, Room 107105 Main StreetDurham, New Hampshire 03824-3547Telephone: (603) 862-1997

North Dakota Gary E. JohnsonND EPSCoR Co-Project DirectorInterim Vice President for ResearchTwamley Hall Rm 415264 Centennial Drive Stop 7093Grand Forks, ND 58202-7093Tel: 701.777.2492Fax: [email protected]

David R. GiversND EPSCoR Co-Project DirectorResearch 1- Suite 1421735 NDSU Research Park DriveFargo, ND 58105-5760Tel: 701.231.7516Fax: [email protected]

Oklahoma Frank WaxmanState Program DirectorTel: 405.225.9459Fax: 405.225.9230E-Mail: [email protected]

Puerto Rico Manuel GomezUniversity of Puerto Rico, Rio PiedrasResource Center for Science and EngineeringBox 23334Rio Piedras, PR 00931-3334(787) 765-5170

21


Rhode Island Paul J. Choquette, Jr.President and CEOGilbane, Inc.7 Jackson WalkwayProvidence, RI 02903 (401) 456-5800

South Carolina John RaymondSouth Carolina EPSCoRInterim Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost171 Ashley AvenueAdministration Building, Rm. 200HCharleston, SC 29425(843) 792-3031

South Dakota James Rice Project Director South Dakota State University Box 2202, SH 115 Brookings, SD 57007-0896 (605) 688-4252

Tennessee Dan MarcumPresident, Marcum Capital410 Wilson AvenueTullahoma, TN 37388Tel: (931) 455-0155

U.S. Virgin Islands Henry H. SmithProject DirectorUniversity of the Virgin Islands2 John Brewer's BaySt. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802-9990Tel: (340) 693-1057

22

A-31


Vermont Judith Van Houten 120 A Marsh Life Science BuildingUniversity of VermontBurlington, VT 05405(802) 656-2922

West Virginia Paul L. HillState DirectorWV EPSCoR1018 Kanawha Blvd E Suite 1101Charleston WV 25301-2825(304) 558 - 4128 x287

Wyoming William A. GernWyoming EPSCoR Coordinating CommitteeVice President for ResearchUniversity of WyomingLaramie, WY 82071(307) 766-5353

23

A-32

A-33

Documents

Kansas DEPSCoR · Web viewKansas DEPSCoR Fiscal Year 2009 Submission Deadlines: September 2, 2008 for Pre-proposals* October 1, 2008 for Final Proposals* If successful, individual