Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

Facility Request Procedures:How does it work?

NSF Facilities Users’ Workshop

24 September 2007

Brigitte Baeuerle (EOL), Jim Huning and Steve Nelson (NSF/ATM)

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES

• To describe current request process for Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities;

• To explain the reasoning behind the changes, implemented in late 2004;

• To clarify roles and responsibilities of NSF Program Officers, Facility Managers (FMs), Observing Facilities Assessment Panel (OFAP) and Principal Investigators (PIs)

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

NSF DEPLOYMENT POOL (DP)

• Reserved “pot” of money (approx. 4 Million/year) exclusively dedicated to support field campaigns that use LAOF;

• Covers costs associated with deployment of LAOF (shipping, fuel, fees, leases, comms, per diem, housing, travel, …);

• Does not cover salaries (except temp hires and OT);

• Does not cover PI support or expenses;

• Does not cover maintenance;

• Does not cover purchase of new instrumentation;

• Does not cover expenses related to project-specific support provided by CDS or FPS (former JOSS support).

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

nObserving Facilities Assessment Panel

(OFAP)

• NCAR-run Advisory Panel

• 18 scientists/recognized experts in fields of observational meteorology

• Appointment based on recommendation by NSF POs, FM, current OFAP members, interest

• Meets twice per year (Spring, Fall)

• 5 year term (approx. 6 mtgs)

• Provides technical assessment of facility requirements to FM, PIs and NSF POs;

• Provides input concerning experiment design and facility usage incl. resources allocations (flight hours, expendables etc)

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

nFACILITIES COVERED BY DP

• NSF/NCAR C-130• NSF/NCAR G-V• UWY King Air• NRL P-3 with NCAR ELDORA• Wyoming Cloud Radar (on KA as well as C-130) • CSU/CHILL Radar• NCAR SPOL Radar• NCAR Integrated Sounding Systems (ISS/MISS) & Multiple

Antenna Profiler (MAPR)• NCAR Integrated Surface Flux Systems (ISFS)• GPS Advanced Upper0Air Sounding Systems (GAUS,

MGAUS)• GPS Dropsonde (AVAPS) System

Not currently covered:• Driftsonde• Raman-shifted Eye-Safe Aerosol Lidar (REAL)

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

nIMPLEMENTATION OF NEW

PROCEDURES IN 2004

New policy and procedures are now in effect and began to impact programs this fiscal year with T-PARC

Main Objectives:

• Assists NSF program officers and the broader community in more effective planning for field campaign

• Assist FM in more effective planning of maintenance and improvements in NSF supported facilities

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

nBenefits

For PIs: • Increased lead time for planning of field campaigns, especially

complex programs;• More rigorous and thorough early review process early in the

planning process;

• Formal proposal to NSF (SPO) provides a mechanism to support project management

For NSF:• Better coordination with international and national partners;

representatives of other agencies may attend/present at OFAP (for clarity and to enhance overall understanding of proposed campaign)

• Holistic review of entire scientific and experimental design; many field campaigns involve critical facilities that were previously not reviewed along with the NSF facilities;

• Better understanding of total campaign cost

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

nBenefits

For EOL: • Increased lead time for planning of field campaigns,

especially complex programs;

• FMs are finding it easier to schedule facility upgrades and maintenance as well as new developments in between campaigns

Challenges

• Some additional up-front work on all parts (cost estimates, additional documentation…);

• PIs have to be organized early on;• Increased trend in demand for facilities many years out

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

nREQUEST PROCESS

Procedures are now different for “large” and “small” programs.> “Large” Programs:

Field Costs >$1,000K (multiple facilities), and/or Unusually Complex Programs,

and/or Programs with Int’l Partners

> “Small” Programs – all the rest

> NSF, in consultation with PIs and FMs, will determine category, cost estimators also available from EOL website

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

SMALL PROGRAMS – PROCESS

• Contact/Inform NSF Program Manager

• Provide Letter of Intent to EOL & NSF> Name, Location, Dates, Facilities, Science> Inclusion in long term planning schedule

• Contact/Interact w. FMs / Facility Staff reg. requirements/ plans

• Prepare/Submit Facility Request to FMs;

• Prepare/Submit OFAP science overview ppt to FMs;

• Prepare/Submit NSF Proposal to NSF; science portion to EOL/Univ;

• For NCAR-led campaigns, prepare/submit Proposal to EOL Director for mail scientific review

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Submit Facility Requestx Submit NSF Proposal

OFAP

x NSF Final Action

1 Submit Facility Request15 Submit NSF Proposal

OFAP

x NSF Final Action

FY 0

Implementation (8 m)

Implementation (8 m) Campaign Period

Campaign Period

FY-1FY-2

SMALL PROGRAMS -- Timeline

Requests possible bi-annually (1 Jul/1 Dec)15-21 months ahead of campaign8 months for implementation

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

nLarge Field Programs

(>$1M or Complex)

• Two antecedent documents required: Scientific Program Overview (SPO) and Experimental Design Overview (EDO)

> Required before submission of science proposals

> Required before submission of facility requests

• SDO and EDO are formal documents and final decisions for science proposal submission(s) will be made based on their reviews

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM OVERVIEW

• Overall justification of the scientific program

• Section D, Project Description> Scientific Rationale - Holistic

> Brief description of experimental design;

> Relationship to prior similar efforts;

> List of all facilities and PIs (irrespective of source of support);

• Formal submission of the SPO to NSF via Fastlane; NSF will distribute SPO or equivalent document to relevant FMs and OFAP

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OVERVIEW• Overall concept of the experimental design, resource

needs and management.

• Holistic

• Structure

> Executive Summary> Scientific Rationale/Objectives> Experimental Design> Project Mgt (before and during field campaign)> Data Mgt> List of Facilities and PIs

• EDO submitted to NSF (Huning and NSF Program Officer); copy to relevant FM and to OFAP

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

LARGE PROGRAMS – PROCESS• Contact/Inform NSF Program Manager (summer/fall FY-3)

• Provide Letter of Intent to EOL & NSF> Name, Location, Dates, Facilities, Science> Inclusion in long term planning schedule

• Preliminary Meeting with FM(s) and facility staff

• Obtain preliminary cost estimates from FM for inclusion in SPO

• Prepare/Submit SPO to NSF

• Prepare/Submit EDO to NSF and EOL

• Prepare/Submit .ppt overview to EOL

• Prepare/Submit Facility Request to FM

• Prepare/Submit NSF Proposal to NSF; science portion to EOL/Univ.

• Prepare updated .ppt overview to EOL

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

nLARGE PROGRAMS -- Timeline

Only one review cycle per fiscal year.

Scientific Review of SPO (completed by May FY-2) as well as individual science proposals (completed by Jan FY-1)

FY-2 SPO/EDO and Facility Request submission dates under discussion

8 to 19 months for implementation

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

x Initial contact between PIs, NSF POs and FMs1 Deadline to request preliminary cost estimates from FM

15 Submit EDO15 Submit SPO

OFAP EDO Review

x NSF decision to encourage or discourage program1 Submit Facility Request (if encouraged)

x Submit individual NSF ProposalsOFAP Facility Request Review

x NSF Final Action on Scientific ProposalsCampaign Period

FY-2 FY 0

Implementation (8 m)

FY-3 FY-1

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

• FM Responsibilities:> Preparation of feasibilities and cost estimates

for facility requests and/or preparation of project assessments for EDOs;

> Preparation of Project Feasibility Presentations for OFAP Meeting

Note: Documents shared with NSF and PIs ahead of OFAP

• NSF Responsibilities:> Conduct of scientific review of all NSF

submitted proposals (SPOs as well as individual proposals);

The black hole – what happens in between the time a request is submitted and the

OFAP Meeting?

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

• EOL Responsibilities:> Where NCAR scientists have lead proposal,

EOL Director will oversee scientific review process and coordinate with appropriate NCAR Lab Director, NSF program office and Facility Managers

> Preparation of “Global Feasibility” (possible project combinations based on direct facility conflicts, resource limitations etc., shared with NSF)

> Planning/Conduct of all aspects of OFAP Meeting including sending out review material to OFAP

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

What happens at the OFAP Meeting?

• Each OFAP member is asked for review preferences and conflicts of interest before mtg;

• Each OFAP member is assigned up to 4 OFAP requests in their area of expertise before OFAP meeting, one of those as lead reviewer;

• Each project is introduced – w/o bias - by lead reviewer using scientific overview presentation provided by requesting PI, to entire OFAP, followed by feasibility analysis presentation by facility staff;

• Assigned review team presents their evaluation, followed by discussion involving all OFAP attendees (i.e., NSF, Facility staff, OFAP)

• Review team summarizes findings in writing and provides to FM

THE OFAP DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER A PROJECT WILL BE FUNDED OR NOT

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

• Summary shared with NSF and PIs

• PIs are welcome to respond to NSF PO

• NSF Program Officer makes final decision based on scientific review of all NSF submitted proposals, feasibility analyses, OFAP recommendation and advice as well as budgetary and scheduling constraints.

• NSF PO informs PIs about decision

• EOL provides Allocation Letter

What happens after the OFAP Meeting?

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

nQuestions from Workshop Attendees

• Out of cycle requests> Not covered by DP but NSF PO Program Funds> Challenging: schedule constraints, little adaptability

• Cost Recovery> On a non-interference basis with NSF programs> Also require some kind of scientific review> “Appropriate Use of the Facility”

• Multi-year Programs> Approval for several years possible> Mid-project review suggested> Will require cost adjustments

Nat

ion

al S

cien

ce F

ou

nd

atio

n

Questions?

http://www.eol.ucar.edu/deployment/request-info