![](media/image1.png){width="1.523611111111111in"
height="0.9729166666666667in"}

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

AND

**SPACE ADMINISTRATION**

**\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\***

> ***GUIDEBOOK FOR PROPOSERS***

##### RESPONDING TO A

> ***NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT (NRA)***

**Edition: July 2005\***

*\*Including changes summarized on the enclosed "Changes from the 2004
Version of the Guidebook" Sheet*

**[Changes from 2004 Version of the Guidebook]{.underline}**

The January 2004 edition of the Guidebook has been subsequently updated
through incorporation of significant and administrative changes as
listed below.

1\. This July 2005 Guidebook incorporates the following *significant*
changes:

a\. Throughout the document "Program Office" is replaced by "Mission
Directorate."

b\. Page vii, the web site for NASA's Vision and Mission statements is
added. "Space Flight" is deleted and replaced by "Exploration Systems"
and "Former Office of Space Flight" is inserted.

c\. Page viii, last paragraph as been rewritten to include references to
finding research opportunities through FedGrants and Grants.Gov.

d Section 1.1, General Background, is modified as follows: 2^nd^
paragraph, 1^st^ sentence "from that sponsored by other Federal
Agencies" is added. 3^rd^ paragraph, last sentence, Clarified the order
of precedence for conflicts between this guidebook and other documents.
Law, regulations and legal instruments will always take precedence over
this guidebook. 4^th^ paragraph, 1^st^ sentence, "interagency
agreements" and "the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)" are deleted.

e\. Section 1.2.1, Writing, Announcing, and Releasing an NRA, is changed
as follows: for clarification the word "Proposal" is deleted and
replaced with "Application." 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, the word
"precludes" is replaced by "excludes." 2^nd^ paragraph, 4^th^ sentence
"for each office" is deleted and
"[http://research.hq.nasa.gov](http://research.hq.nasa.gov/)" is deleted
and replaced by "<http://nspires.nasaprs.com/> " 3^rd^ paragraph, 1^st^
sentence, <http://nspires.nasaprs.com/> is added and "by opening
"research Opportunities"...\...found through the menu" is deleted.

f\. Section 1.2.2, Proposal Content and Submission, 2^nd^ paragraph,
4^th^ bullet, "his/her" is deleted and replaced by "their."

g\. Section 1.2.3, Proposal Review and Selection, 3^rd^ paragraph, 1^st^
sentence the word "evaluate" is deleted and replaced by "consider" and
the word "against" is deleted and replaced by "in the context. 4^th^
paragraph, 3^rd^ sentence, "; and that" is deleted and replaced by ".
Furthermore."

h\. Section 1.3.2 Evaluation for Acceptance for Review, last paragraph,
after the last sentence, references are added..

i\. Section 1.4.2 Proposal Personnel, 1st bullet entitled, "Principal
Investigator (PI)," 1^st^ sentence the word "must" is deleted and
replaced by "shall". And in the 2^nd^ paragraph, last sentence, "Such
personnel are to be designated" is deleted and replaced by "Such
personnel must be designated."

j\. Section 1.6, Proposals Involving Non-U.S. Organizations (Ref.:
Appendix B, Section (l), the title is changed to read "Other
Guidelines." The paragraph has been divided into 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 and
rewritten in its entirety.

k\. Section 2.1 Overview, is changed as follows: 2^nd^ paragraph, 1^st^
sentence, delete "Starting" and replace by "Since" and delete "will
begin using" and replaced by "has started to use." In the last sentence
replace "an" by "a." After 2^nd^ paragraph, a new paragraph is added to
provide information regarding Export Control. In the 4th Paragraph,
after the 4^th^ sentence the following is added: "Affiliation is a
two-way relationship that requires the approval of the targeted
organization. Organizations may take some time to respond to requests
for affiliations." After the 5^th^ sentence, a new sentence is added
"This may introduce extra time into the proposal preparation and
submission cycle." In the 6^th^ sentence "you will find a variety of" is
deleted and replaced by "may be used." In the 7^th^ sentence the word
"fiscal" is deleted and replaced with Calendar."

l\. Section 2.2, Standard Proposal Style Formats, 1^st^ paragraph, a
first new sentence is added: "NSPIRES provides for printing of a
hardcopy proposal when mandated by the solicitation that will typically
satisfy many of NASA's formatting requirements." Last bullet, 1^st^
sentence, "unless otherwise specified in the NRA or preformatted in
NSPIRES" is deleted and replaced by "unless otherwise specified in the
NRA or preformatted in NSPIRES."

m\. Section 2.3.1, Overview of Proposal, under "Constituent Parts of a
Proposal," 3^rd^ bullet, under page limit, "3" is deleted and replaced
by "2.". And after last bullet, Reprint(s)/Preprints, the word
"(optional)" is deleted and replaced by "Not allowed." In the last
sentence marked by "\*" after "where" is changed to read "each "n-page"
fold-out counts as n-pages and each side of a sheet containing text or
an illustration counts as a page."

n\. Section 2.3.2, Proposal Cover Page and Budget Summary, this section
has been rewritten to incorporate various NSPIRES instructions and to
make formatting changes.

o\. Section 2.3.3, adds the last sentence, "NSPIRES may provide some
assistance in preparing your Table of Contents but you are responsible
for its accuracy."

p\. Section 2.3.4, "intended" is replaced by "planned, and a
clarification is provided for the use of 1840 hours as a basis for
determining work commitments."

q\. Section 2.3.5, first sentence, "default" is deleted from ". ..
default limit is 15 pages"; "formats" is replaced by "values."

r\. Section 2.3.8, Curriculum Vitae., 1^st^ sentence, delete "three
pages" and replace by "two pages." Same change in the last sentence.

s\. Section 2.3.10, Statement(s) of Commitment, one paragraph is added
to cover the NSPIRES system electronic statement of commitment
capability.

t\. Section 2.3.11(a)(7), Carryover funds will no longer be included as
part of the budget proposal. NASA reserves the right to use unexpended
funds from prior grant awards, but the availability of such funds will
not be an element of proposal submission.

u\. Section 2.3.11(b) (iv), this paragraph is rewritten and the NASA
full cost website is incorporated. ,

v\. Section 2.3.12, Special Notifications and/or Certifications is
divided into two paragraphs. (a) Special Notifications and/or
Certifications and (b) Personnel from Non-U.S. Organizations.

w\. Section 2.3.13, Reprint(s)/Preprints(s) is rewritten in its
entirety.

x\. Section 3.1, Notice of Intent (NOI) to Propose, the web address is
corrected as well as wording and web site procedures to reflect the new
NSPIRES system

y\. Section 3.3, Submission of Proposals, the web address is corrected
and NSPIRES information is added.

z\. Section 3.4, Timeline for Review and Selection, for clarification
only, second sentence "200 days from the Proposal Due Date" is changed
to "200 days after the Proposal Due Date."

aa. Section 3.5, Proposal Withdrawal by Proposer or Return by NASA,
third bullet, "Fail to be submitted" is changed to "Fail to be
delivered."

bb. Appendix C, Section C.1 Overview, 4^th^ bullet, "budgetary aspects"
is deleted and replaced by "cost reasonableness" and at the end of last
sentence, the phrase "nor folded into the overall evaluation
determination." is deleted. In the 6^th^ bullet, the second sentence is
added to notify proposer that they may request a debriefing from NASA
identifying strengths and weaknesses. A new 7^th^ bullet is added to
address Members of Congress notifications.

cc\. Section C.3, Evaluation Processes, 1^st^ paragraph, a 3^rd^
sentence is added to allow NASA to evaluate proposals using only mail
reviews. The last sentence allows the NASA Program Officer to review,
and if appropriate the chairperson of the panel. The Basis for Summary
Evaluation, and Relationship of Summary Evaluation to Potential for
Selection descriptions are revised. 3^rd^ paragraph, "would effectively
prevent in part or wholly the proposed objectives from being
accomplished, or that otherwise" is deleted. 4^th^ paragraph, last
sentence, "between" is deleted and replaced by "among."

dd. Section C.5.3, Disclosure of Selections and Nonselections, adds
third sentence to allow the proposer the opportunity prior to public
disclosure to modify the Proposal summary when the proposal is partially
selected by NASA.

ee. Section E.2, Sample Nondisclosure and Conflict of Interest
Agreement, first sentence, change "prime" reviewer to "mail-in"
reviewer.

ff. Section E.3, Sample Proposal Evaluation form, Summary Evaluation For
Intrinsic Merit., the note is reworded to "This Summary may be as long
as required but it must reflect the documented Strengths and Weaknesses"
for clarification. Paragraph 3, Cost Realism and Resonableness, delete
"available funds" and replace by "proposed personnel and
purchases/travel/direct costs." In the paragraph entitled "Summary
Evaluation of Proposal," 1^st^ bullet, the text, "may be as long" as
required is added and "it must" clearly identify is added. 2^nd^ bullet,
Note: the word "Only" is added to, "Only one rating box is to be checked
. . ." in order to prevent more than one box being checked. 1^st^
sub-bullet under Guidelines for Determination of Overall Evaluation,
1^st^ sentence is changed to read: ". A competent proposal that
demonstrates a credible response to the solicitation but strengths and
weaknesses essentially balance each other is properly designated as
"Good." In last sub-bullet add "a" before well-defined.

gg. Section F.7, "SYS-EYFUS " is deleted and replaced by "NASA's current
electronic proposal" system.

2\. In July 2005, the following administrative changes were made:

a\. Throughout the document format changes have been made.

b\. Throughout the document "January 2004" is changed to read "July
2005".

c\. Page ix , second sentence the word "Alternatively" is deleted.

d\. Section 1.7, Guidelines for Proposal Preparation, fourth bullet, "a
submission" is changed to "an article to be submitted."

e\. Section 2.1, Overview, 2^nd^ paragraph, 5th sentence, "for securing"
is changed to "in order to secure."

f\. Section 2.3.2, Proposal Cover Page and Budget Summary, 3rd
paragraph, beginning of second sentence, "Note that" is deleted.

g\. Section D.4 Funding Continuation ("Renewals") of Multiple Year
Awards, the last paragraph is revised in its entirety.

g\. Section E.1.1, Certification of compliance on Proposal Cover Page,
last sentence, underlines "they should not be submitted with the
proposal."

h\. Section F.21, Who may be listed as participating personnel on a
proposal? second sentence is reworded for clarity.

**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

# PREFACE

> • Introduction to this Guidebook
>
> • Introduction to NASA's Sponsored Research Programs
>
> • Statements of General Policies
>
> • NASA World Wide Web (WWW) Home Page
>
> • Notification of Release of NASA Research Announcements

1\. [OVERVIEW OF THE NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT (NRA)]{.underline}

> 1.1 General Background
>
> 1.2 Overview Description of the Processes
>
> 1.2.1 Writing, Announcing, and Releasing an NRA
>
> 1.2.2 Proposal Content and Submission
>
> 1.2.3 Proposal Review and Selection
>
> 1.3 Unsolicited Proposals
>
> 1.3.1 Definition
>
> 1.3.2 Evaluation for Acceptance for Review
>
> 1.4 Categories of Proposal Organizations and Personnel
>
> 1.4.1 Proposing Organizations
>
> 1.4.2 Proposal Personnel
>
> 1.5 Successor Proposals
>
> 1.6 Other Guidelines
>
> 1.6.1 Proposals Involving Non-U.S. Participants
>
> 1.6.2 Export Control
>
> 1.7 Guidelines for Proposal Preparation

2\. [PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND ORGANIZATION]{.underline}

> 2.1 Overview
>
> 2.2 Standard Proposal Style Formats
>
> 2.3 Proposal Contents
>
> 2.3.1 Overview of Proposal
>
> 2.3.2 Proposal Cover Page and Budget Summary
>
> 2.3.3 Table of Contents
>
> 2.3.4 Summary of Proposal Personnel and Work Commitments
>
> 2.3.5 Scientific/Technical/Management Section
>
> 2.3.6 References and Citations
>
> 2.3.7 Facilities and Equipment
>
> 2.3.8 Curriculum Vitae
>
> 2.3.9 Current and Pending Support
>
> 2.3.10 Statement(s) of Commitment
>
> 2.3.11 Budget Details
>
> 2.3.11(a) Instructions for Budget Summary
>
> 2.3.11(b) Special Budget Considerations
>
> 2.3.12 Special Notifications and/or Certifications
>
> 2.3.13 Reprint(s)/Preprint(s)

3\. [PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCEDURES]{.underline}

> 3.1 Notice of Intent (NOI) to Propose
>
> 3.2 On-Time and Late Proposals
>
> 3.3 Submission of Proposals
>
> 3.4 Timeline for Review and Selection

## 3.5 Proposal Withdrawal by Proposer or Return by NASA 

## 

## APPENDICES 

A. [GUIDE TO KEY DOCUMENTS ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB]{.underline}

B. [INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO NASA RESEARCH
ANNOUNCEMENTS]{.underline}

> (NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Part 1852.235-72)

C. [PROPOSAL PROCESSING, REVIEW, AND SELECTION]{.underline}

> C.1 Overview
>
> C.2 Evaluation Criteria
>
> C.3 Evaluation Process
>
> C.4 Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality
>
> C.5 Selection Procedures
>
> C.5.1 Overview
>
> C.5.2 Partial Selections
>
> C.5.3 Disclosure of Selected and Nonselected Proposals
>
> C.6 Debriefing of Proposers

D. [PROPOSAL AWARDS AND CONTINUED SUPPORT]{.underline}

> D.1 New Awards
>
> D.1.1 Awards to NASA Centers
>
> D.1.2 Awards to Non-NASA Organizations
>
> D.2 Requests for Augmentation to an Award
>
> D.3 No Cost Extensions
>
> D.4 Funding Continuation (\"Renewals\") of Multiple Year Awards
>
> D.5 Completing an Award

E. [CERTIFICATIONS, SAMPLE AGREEMENTS, AND FORMS]{.underline}

> E.1 Certifications and Assurances
>
> E.1.1 Certification of Compliance on Proposal Cover Page
>
> E.1.2 "*Assurance of Compliance...Pursuant to Nondiscrimination...*"
>
> E.1.3 "*Certification Regarding Lobbying*"
>
> E.1.4 "*Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and ...*"
>
> E.2 Sample Nondisclosure and Conflict of Interest Agreement
>
> E.3 Prototype Proposal Evaluation Form

F. [FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS]{.underline}

> F.1 Who answers questions about an NRA?
>
> F.2 Is all the information in this Guidebook needed to prepare a
> proposal?
>
> F.3 Who is responsible for what?
>
> F.4 Who determines the types of award to be made?
>
> F.5 Who monitors an award?
>
> F.6 Is it \"my\" award?
>
> F.7 Must every proposal have certain documents?

F.8 Once an award has been implemented, for what must prior approval be
requested?

> F.9 What happens if the PI changes organizations?
>
> F.10 Who owns any equipment purchased through the award?
>
> F.11 Can an award be suspended or terminated?
>
> F.12 Are there required reports?

F.13 What is NASA's policy about releasing data and results derived
through its sponsored research awards?

> F.14 How is NASA to be acknowledged in publications?
>
> F.15 Can audits occur, and are they important?
>
> F.16 What are the uses of a No Cost Extension?

F.17 Why are all these requirements and details about research awards
necessary?

F.18 Why aren't all proposals that are highly rated by peer review
selected for funding?

F.19 Are proposals from NASA Centers subject to peer review, and are
their budgets based on Full Cost Accounting?

> F.20 Why is an award sometimes slow in being implemented?
>
> F.21 Who may be listed as participating personnel on a proposal?

F.22 How does the NASA Research Announcement (NRA) differ from other
types of NASA research solicitations?

F.23 What is NASA's policy for submitting late proposals?

> F.24 Why doesn't NASA release the names of its reviewers?

**[PREFACE]{.underline}**

**[INTRODUCTION TO THIS GUIDEBOOK]{.underline}**

This Guidebook describes the policies and procedures of the Broad Agency
Announcement known as the NASA Research Announcement (NRA) used by the
program offices at the Headquarters of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) that solicit proposals for basic science and
technology research. All proposers who plan to respond to an NRA
released by NASA Headquarters should adhere to the guidelines contained
in the main Chapters 1, 2, and 3, and Appendices unless otherwise noted
in the NRA itself.

In general, Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of this Guidebook supplement the
material given in its Appendix B, entitled \"*Instructions For
Responding To NASA Research Announcements*,\" which reproduces NASA
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Supplement (NFS) 1852.235-72 (see
Appendix A for access information). Its Appendices C and D describe how
NRA proposals are reviewed, selected, and administered, and are included
for completeness of information for proposers. Appendix E contains a
variety of certifications and forms that relate to proposals and their
evaluations, while Appendix F contains frequently asked questions and
answers concerning the NRA proposal and administrative processes.

The most recent edition of this Guidebook can always be accessed on the
World Wide Web (WWW) at
<http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/>. Each NRA will
indicate the applicable edition.

This Guidebook may be reproduced in part or in total without
restriction.

**[INTRODUCTION TO NASA'S SPONSORED RESEARCH PROGRAMS]{.underline}**

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is an independent
Federal Agency of the United States (U.S.) created by the *National
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958*. The NASA Vision and Mission
statements are given in the NASA Strategic Plan at the Web site:
<http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PD_1000_001C_&page_name=main>:

NASA Vision: • To improve life here;

• To extend life to there;

• To find life beyond.

NASA Mission: • To understand and protect our home planet,

• To explore the Universe and search for life,

• To inspire the next generation of explorers,

...as only NASA can.

As of August, 2004, NASA has streamlined the agency's structure in order
to implement the Vision for Space Exploration. This transformation
fundamentally restructures the former Strategic Enterprises into Mission
Directorates to better align with the Vision. Below are the directorates
listed with their former names:

-   Science Mission Directorate

    -   Former Office of Earth Science

    -   Former Office of Space Science

-   Exploration Systems Mission Directorate,

    -   Former Office of Biological and Physical Research

    -   Former Office of Exploration Systems

-   Office of the Chief Education Officer

    -   Former Office of Education

        -   Former Office of Equal Opportunity Programs, Minority
            University Research and Education Division

        -   Former Office of Human Resources, Education Division

-   Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

    -   Former Office of Aerospace Technology

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Space Operations Mission Directorate

    -   Former Office of Space Flight.

These Directorates pursue NASA's goals using a wide variety of ground-,
aeronautical-, and space-based programs and any of these may issue NRAs
that will incorporate this Guidebook by formal reference. Examples of
such programs are NASA's manned and unmanned space missions to explore
and study the planet Earth, the Solar System, and the universe; NASA's
life, microgravity, and applications research using the Earth-orbiting
Shuttle and International Space Station; and NASA's ground- and
space-based programs and facilities to develop advanced aeronautics and
space systems. Awards for research through these various programs fund
thousands of scientists, engineers, and educators each year at U.S.
nonprofit and commercial organizations, as well as Federal research
organizations including NASA's own Centers and the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. In addition, NASA solicits proposals to foster aggressive
programs aimed at education and public outreach, as well as to ensure
maximum participation in NASA programs by minority organizations, small
businesses, and small disadvantaged businesses. Further material about
all of NASA's many interests and programs may be found through links
starting at the NASA homepage at <http://www.nasa.gov/>.

**[STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY]{.underline}**

[NASA's Partnership with the Research and Education
Communities]{.underline}. Funding for NASA-related research and
development projects is a privilege accorded to qualified science,
engineering, and educational personnel by NASA acting on behalf of the
citizens of the United States through Congressional action. NASA's
proposal and selection procedures work only because the various research
communities and NASA Program Offices together maintain the highest level
of integrity at all stages of the processes. As a general rule,
recipients of NASA research awards largely manage their own research
projects with minimal oversight by the Agency. Throughout the entire
process---starting with the identification of program objectives, the
preparation and peer review of submitted proposals, the conduct of the
research itself, and, finally, the exposition of new knowledge through
publications, public outreach, and education---NASA sees itself as a
partner with the scientific, engineering, and educational communities in
making its programs relevant and productive.

[Inclusive Solicitation of Proposals]{.underline}. NASA welcomes
proposals in response to its research solicitations from all qualified
sources, and especially encourages proposals from Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Other Minority Universities (OMUs),
small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs), and women-owned small businesses
(WOSB's). In accordance with Federal statutes and NASA policy, no
eligible applicant shall be excluded from participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving financial assistance from NASA on the grounds of
their race, color, creed, age, sex, national origin, or disability.

**[NASA WORLD WIDE WEB (WWW) HOME PAGES]{.underline}**

Links to all material posted on the World Wide Web concerning NASA and
its programs may be found through the NASA homepage at
<http://www.nasa.gov/>. (Note: all of the NASA postings on the Internet
may be searched through the NASA search engine found at
<http://www.nasa.gov/search>).

**[NOTIFICATION OF RELEASE OF NASA RESEARCH SOLICITATIONS]{.underline}**

Links to all open and recently closed NASA Research Announcements (NRAs)
released by NASA Headquarters may be accessed through the Web address
<http://nspires.nasaprs.com/>. Alternatively, the NASA Acquisition
Internet Service (NAIS) provides an inclusive, searchable database for
all solicitations of every type released by the Agency by opening
"Business Opportunities" from the menu at
<http://procurement.nasa.gov/>. This listing will also include any NRAs
that may be released by any of NASA's Field Centers. Researchers may
also find research grant opportunities offered by NASA and other federal
agencies on the FedGrants website, <http://www.fedgrants.gov/>, or
through the Grants.Gov web site at
[[http://www.grants.gov/]{.underline}](http://www.grants.gov/).

**1. [OVERVIEW OF THE NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT (NRA) ]{.underline}**

1.1 [General Background]{.underline}

In fulfillment of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as
amended (accessible on the World Wide Web at
[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/ogc/spaceact.html](http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/amendactogc/spaceact.html)),
NASA endeavors to sponsor the highest quality research and development
of the newest technologies related to the space and aeronautical
sciences. Therefore, NASA solicits proposals by issuing Broad Agency
Announcements of several different types for the particular targeted
objectives sought by each program. This Guidebook specifically discusses
the policies and procedures of the Broad Agency Announcement known as
the NASA Research Announcement (NRA).

A key feature that distinguishes the research sponsored by NASA from
that sponsored by other Federal Agencies is that it must be relevant to
NASA's programs in addition to its being of the highest intrinsic
science and technical merits and affordable and realistic in cost.
Therefore, proposals that respond to a specific NRA are called
\"solicited proposals\", of which NASA receives and processes several
thousand each year as submitted in response to many different research
solicitations. Responsible and timely handling of these proposals is
crucial for the integrity and efficiency of the review and funding
processes. The standards set forth in this Guidebook not only facilitate
these processes but also promote the highest level of professionalism by
NASA for handling and reviewing of proposals. Therefore, potential
proposers are urged to read this Guidebook carefully and to adhere to
the requirements specific to each NRA of interest in order to submit a
valid, responsive proposal.

In general, this Guidebook supplements the material given in its
Appendix B, entitled \"*Instructions for Responding to NASA Research
Announcements*,\" which reproduces NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) Supplement (NFS) 1852.235-72 (see Appendix A for the World Wide
Web access to the NFS). Where appropriate in this Guidebook, especially
in Chapter 2 below, the cross reference to Appendix B is provided in
brackets (for example, \"\[Ref.: Appendix B, Part (a)\]\"). In case of
any conflict, the order of precedence to be followed is first,
provisions of law, second the NFS, third, the specific requirements
noted in the NRA itself, and lastly the direction provided in this
Guidebook.

The funding mechanisms used by NASA for research selected through an NRA
are grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and NASA's own internal
processes for funding activities at its Centers and JPL. For
conciseness, the term \"award" will be used hereafter in this Guidebook
to mean any of these funding mechanisms, and, similarly, \"Award
Officer\" will mean either a NASA Grant Officer or a NASA Contracting
Officer. In all cases, only the Award Officer has binding authority to
obligate Government funds allocated to a recipient. See Appendix D for
more details about both the definition and administration of research
awards.

1.2 [Overview Description of the Processes]{.underline}

1.2.1 Writing, Announcing, and Releasing an NRA

Regardless of their objectives, NRAs released by NASA that specifically
incorporate this Guidebook by reference will be patterned on a standard
format that, at a minimum, includes:

-   Overview Information

-   Executive Summary

-   Funding Opportunity Description

-   Award Information

-   Eligibility Information

-   Application and Submission Information

-   Application Review Information

-   Award Administration Information

-   NASA Contacts

-   Other Information

Pursuant to Federal statute, all NRAs must be synopsized in the Federal
Business Opportunities (FBO) at
[http://www.fedbizopps.gov](http://www.fedbizopps.gov/) at least 15
calendar days prior to their release. If the NRA anticipates the award
of both contracts and grants or cooperative agreements, the NRA must be
synopsized to both the FBO and Grants.gov, located at
[http://www.Fedgrants.gov](http://www.Fedgrants.gov/), at least 15
calendar days prior to their release. If an NRA expressly excludes the
award of a contract as a funding instrument, the NRA must be synopsized
to [Grants.Gov](http://www.Fedgrants.gov/) no later than three days
after the release of the NRA (posting in the FBO is not legally
required). As a service to the interested members of the science,
technical, and educational research communities, some NASA Headquarters
program offices also provide direct notification of the intended release
of their program announcements through Internet-based or postal mail
services that may be subscribed to by following the instructions found
at the research opportunities Website (see complete listing at
<http://nspires.nasaprs.com/>). However, note that NASA is not
responsible for inadvertently failing to provide E-mail or postal
notification of a future NRA. Finally, NRAs may also be accessed through
the menu listing "Business Opportunities" of NASA\'s Acquisition
Internet Service (NAIS) at
<http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nais/index.cgi>. In all cases, a
notice in any of these venues will always contain at least the following
fundamental information:

-   Title of program for which proposals are solicited;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Unique NRA alpha-numeric identifier;

-   Date of release of NRA and World Wide Web address for access;

-   Due dates for Notices of Intent to propose (optional) and for
    proposals;

-   Executive summary of announcement objectives;

-   A statement of the inclusiveness of eligibility applicants; and

-   Name and address of the cognizant NASA Program Officer for further
    information.

Each NRA may also be found on its date of release at
<http://nspires.nasaprs.com/>. Generally, advance notices of future NRAs
are found at the same location with a best estimate of its release date,
though such advance postings are not guaranteed. Notification of NRAs
may also appear in various professional publications that serve specific
science disciplines, engineering fields, or educational areas, and/or in
a variety of commercial publications that report news concerning NASA's
programs. However, since such notifications may not appear until several
weeks after the actual release dates, those interested in NASA research
opportunities are urged to subscribe to the relevant NASA E-mail
notification service(s), to check the relevant NASA home page(s), and/or
to check the NAIS, FBO, and Grants.Gov FIND Web sites. All other sources
are unofficial and not necessarily complete nor timely.

1.2.2 Proposal Content and Submission

Unless specifically amended in the signed Summary of Solicitation of the
NRA itself, the proposal preparation and submission processes for all
NRAs that specifically reference this Guidebook are given in the
following Chapters 2 and 3 below. Note that while NASA program personnel
may also be contacted to discuss general program objectives with
prospective proposers, they are forbidden from providing specific advice
on budgetary or technical issues beyond those published in the NRA that
would give an unfair competitive advantage unless this same information
is openly available to all interested proposers.

As a general rule, in order to be considered complete and, therefore,
accepted for competitive review, proposals submitted in response to an
NRA should provide at a minimum the following key information:

-   a detailed description of the proposed research objective(s) and
    its(their) significance to its field of endeavor;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   the suitability of the methods proposed for carrying out the
    proposed investigation;

-   the significance of the proposed work as it relates to the
    objectives specifically stated in the NRA and to NASA in general;

-   the qualifications of the proposing investigator(s) and their
    organization(s); and

-   the amount of, and justification for, the requested funding.

NASA must receive the required number of printed copies plus the signed
original of the proposal at the designated mailing address by the
proposal deadline that will be given in each NRA (see Section 3.2 in
this Guidebook for the policy on late proposals). Alternatively, some
NRAs may specify that an electronic copy of the entire proposal also be
submitted, or even be submitted instead of a printed copy, either
through the World Wide Web or by means of a specified electronic storage
medium.

1.2.3 Proposal Review and Selection

To be competitive for selection, proposals must fully satisfy the
evaluation criteria as judged through review by qualified peers of the
proposer and by programmatic evaluation for cost and relevance by NASA
(see further details in Appendix C of this Guidebook). NASA will begin
this evaluation process as soon as possible after the deadline for
proposal submission. At a minimum, the evaluation criteria against which
the proposals will be judged will be those listed in Section C.2 of
Appendix C, although these may be supplemented by specific criteria
given in the NRA itself. NASA always seeks the best possible evaluations
by appropriately qualified peers of the proposer who are knowledgeable,
though not necessarily specialists, in the objective(s) solicited by the
NRA. Experience has consistently shown that the characteristics of
successful proposals are that they are technically meritorious, logical,
complete, convincing, easily read, and responsive to and affordable by
the advertised NASA program.

Following peer evaluation, the cognizant NRA Program Officer will
consider the competitively-rated proposals in the context of the
programmatic objectives and financial limitations stated in the NRA. The
Program Officer then presents a recommendation for selection based on
the entirety of these factors to the NASA Selecting Official identified
in the NRA who then selects those proposals deemed worthy as judged
against the evaluation criteria, the objectives of the NRA, and the
available financial resources.

Following selection, each proposer will be notified of the disposition
of his/her proposal and, if desired, provided the opportunity to be
debriefed. Those proposers who are selected will be advised that their
organizations will be contacted by the responsible NASA Procurement
Office to arrange for implementation of an appropriate award. It is
important to note that until an award is made, there is no guarantee
that the recommended financial resources will be available. Furthermore,
awards are made to the proposing organization, and not directly to the
Principal Investigator. Appendix D provides ancillary information about
how NASA typically implements and manages awards for the proposals
selected through its NRAs.

1.3 [Unsolicited Proposals]{.underline}

1.3.1 Definition

Unsolicited proposals are defined as those submitted to NASA on the
initiative of the applicant rather than in response to an NRA (see
Appendix A for reference to further information). However, since funding
resources are rarely available beyond those of NASA's formally defined
programs, anyone considering the submission of an unsolicited proposal
is strongly advised to consult with appropriate NASA program personnel
[before]{.underline} preparing and submitting such a proposal. In
accordance with the NASA FAR Supplement Part 1815.6, the information
NASA personnel may provide in discussing the development of an
unsolicited proposal is limited to the general need for the type of
effort contemplated for the proposal and, as appropriate, the names of
other Agency personnel for the limited purpose of obtaining an
understanding of the Agency mission and responsibilities relative to the
type of effort contemplated. NASA personnel may not encourage or
otherwise "solicit" that a proposal be submitted (see third item listed
in next paragraph below). The decision to submit an unsolicited proposal
must be entirely that of the proposer alone.

2.  Evaluation for Acceptance for Review

An unsolicited proposal received by NASA is first evaluated to ascertain
if it is relevant to NASA's interests. If it is not relevant, it will be
handled as technical correspondence and returned without review. If it
is relevant, it will be assigned to the most appropriate NASA Mission
Directorate under cover of a copy of a letter informing the proposer of
that assignment. For an unsolicited proposal that falls within the
domain of a current NASA program or interest, the proposal will be
further assessed to determine if it:

-   proposes a specific, unique, or innovative project with sufficient
    technical and cost information to permit its meaningful evaluation;

-   is signed by an official authorized to commit the submitting
    organization to carrying out the proposed effort if it is selected;

-   does not offer to perform standard services, nor has been prepared
    under or as a result of Government (NASA) supervision or request;

-   does not request a level of funding beyond that which could be
    accommodated by uncommitted resources should the proposal be found
    to be of sufficient merit; and

-   is not appropriate for submission to a formal NASA solicitation that
    is either already open or planned for release in the near future
    through which the proposal could be competed with other similar
    proposals (Note: regarding this point, an unsolicited proposal
    identified as being within the scope of an open program
    announcement, or one that is soon to be released, may be evaluated
    as a response to that announcement providing that this action does
    not place the proposal as submitted at a competitive disadvantage
    based on the requirements for that program; if this action would
    result in a competitive disadvantage, the applicant will be given
    the opportunity to amend the proposal to ensure compliance with
    applicable proposal preparation instructions, e.g., to meet the
    standards and provisions of this Guidebook and the appropriate
    solicitation).

If an unsolicited proposal fails to meet [any]{.underline} of these
guidelines, NASA reserves the right to handle it as technical
correspondence and return it without review. If an unsolicited proposal
is determined to be valid, NASA will conduct an appropriate review (at a
minimum, by NASA personnel only; at a maximum, by external mail and/or
panel review), after which it will be submitted to an appropriate NASA
Selection Official for selection or rejection. (See also NPR5800.1,
Grant and Cooperative Handbook, Section A, Part 1260.17, and NASA FAR
Supplement, Part 1815.6, Unsolicited Proposals).

1.4 [Categories of Proposal Organizations and Personnel]{.underline}

1.4.1 Proposing Organizations

NASA accepts proposals in response to its NRAs submitted by all types of
U.S. and non-U.S. organizations acting on behalf of the proposer(s). As
an aid to NASA to determine the appropriate type of award to be used
should a proposal be selected, designation of one of the following
organizational categories is requested on the Proposal Cover Page (see
Section 2.3.2 below in this Guidebook):

-   [Educational Organization]{.underline} -- A university or two- and
    four-year college (including U.S. community colleges) accredited to
    confer degrees beyond that of the K-12 grade levels (such
    organizations are usually considered nonprofit).

-   [Nonprofit, Nonacademic Organization]{.underline} -- A private or
    Government supported research laboratory, university consortium,
    museum, observatory, professional society, educational organization,
    or similar organization that directly supports advanced research
    activities but whose principal charter is not for the training of
    students for academic degrees.

-   [Commercial Organization]{.underline} -- An organization of any size
    that operates for profit or fee and that has appropriate
    capabilities, facilities, and interests to conduct the proposed
    effort.

-   [NASA Center]{.underline} -- Any NASA Field Center and the Jet
    Propulsion Laboratory.

-   [Other Federal Agency]{.underline} -- Any non-NASA, U.S. Federal
    Executive agency or Federally Funded Research and Development Center
    (FFRDC) sponsored by a Federal agency.

-   [Unaffiliated Individual]{.underline} -- Any person residing in the
    U.S., regardless of being a U.S. citizen or resident alien, who has
    the capabilities and access to facilities for carrying out the
    proposed project and who, if selected, agrees to financial
    arrangements that NASA determines as sufficient to ensure the
    responsible management of appropriated Federal funds.

-   [Non-U.S. Organizations]{.underline} -- Organizations outside the
    U.S. that propose on the basis of a policy of no-exchange-of-funds;
    consult Section (l) of Appendix B in this Guidebook for specific
    details (Note: some NRAs may be issued jointly with a non-U.S.
    organization, e.g., those concerning guest observing programs for
    jointly sponsored space science programs, that will contain
    additional special guidelines for non-U.S. participants). Also see
    Sections 2.3.11(b)(vii) in this Guidebook for special instructions
    for proposals from non-U.S. organizations that involve U.S.
    personnel for whom NASA support is requested.

1.4.2 Proposal Personnel

Every proposal submitted to an NRA must identify every person and their
organization of employment who is expected to play a significant role in
the execution of the proposed effort if it is selected by NASA (see
Sections 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 in this Guidebook) using one of the following
six categories of personnel (Note: other than the Principal
Investigator, some NRAs may specifically disallow some or all of these
categories):

-   [Principal Investigator (PI)]{.underline} -- Every proposal shall
    identify a single PI who is solely responsible for the quality and
    direction of the proposed research and for the proper use of awarded
    funds regardless of whether or not he/she receives support through
    the award. The proposing organization has the authority to designate
    the PI and to designate any replacements of him/her, if that becomes
    necessary, although NASA approval is required for replacement after
    proposal selection. Note that NASA does not accept the designation
    of anyone as a \"Co-Principal Investigator\" with the possible
    exception of when a proposal includes participation from a non-U.S.
    organization; see further discussion below under Co-Investigators.

NASA strongly encourages Principal Investigators to specify only the
most critically important personnel to aid in the execution of their
proposals. Such personnel must be designated as being in one of the
following categories:

-   [Co-Investigator (Co-I)]{.underline} -- A Co-I is a member of the
    proposal's investigation team who may hold either a full-time or
    limited-term appointment and who is a critical "partner" for the
    conduct of the investigation through the contribution of unique
    expertise and/or capabilities. A Co-I must have a well-defined, and
    generally sustained, continuing role in the proposed investigation,
    serve under the direction of the PI, and may or may not receive
    funding through the award. Only an individual who has formally
    agreed to the role may participate as a Co-I even if his/her
    participation is at no cost (i.e., contributed) to the proposal.
    Each Co-I must demonstrate his/her commitment to participate in the
    proposed investigation by way of a brief, signed statement from
    him/her even if they are from the proposing organization (see
    Section 2.3.10 in this Guidebook). The
    Scientific/Technical/Management section of a proposal (see Section
    2.3.5) may also designate that a Co-I carry additional
    responsibilities as appropriate for the following unique
    circumstances:

    -   One Co-I may also be designated as the \"Science PI\" for those
        cases where the proposing organization does not permit that
        individual to formally serve as a PI as defined above (e.g.,
        nontenured faculty or postdoctoral personnel). In such a case,
        that Co-I/Science PI will be understood by NASA to be in charge
        of the scientific direction of the proposed work, although the
        formally designated PI will still be held responsible for the
        overall direction of the effort and use of funds.

    -   A Co-I at an organization other than that of the PI institution
        who is making a major contribution to the proposal (e.g.,
        providing a significant piece of hardware) and who serves as the
        point of contact at that Co-I's organization, may also be
        designated as the \"Institutional PI\" for that Co-I's
        organization (Note: if specifically stated in the NRA, NASA may
        elect to provide an award directly to that Co-I organization
        with the Co-I/Organizational PI serving as a \"PI\" for that
        award at his/her organization).

    -   A Co-I from a non-U.S. organization may also be designated as a
        \"Co-Principal Investigator\" (Co-PI) should such a designation
        be required to fulfill administrative requirements of that
        Co-I's organization and/or to enable the procurement of funding
        by that Co-I from his/her sponsoring funding authority (see also
        Appendix B, Section (l)).

        -   [Postdoctoral Associate]{.underline} -- A Postdoctoral
            Associate holds a Ph.D. or equivalent degree, is usually
            employed full time at the proposing PI organization, is
            identified as a major participant (but not explicitly as a
            Co-I) for the execution of the proposed research, and is
            appropriately remunerated for that effort through the
            proposal's budget. Such a Postdoctoral Associate should be
            identified by name, if known, by the time the proposal is
            submitted or may be identified only by designated function
            in those cases where recruitment depends on the successful
            selection of the proposal.

        -   [Other Professional]{.underline} -- This category is
            appropriate for personnel who support a proposal in a
            critical manner, e.g., a key Project Engineer and/or
            Manager, but who is not identified as a Co-I or Postdoctoral
            Associate.

        -   [Graduate and/or Undergraduate Students]{.underline}-- A
            proposal may incorporate students working for graduate or
            postgraduate degrees who will be paid through the proposal's
            budget to help carry out the proposed research under
            direction of the PI or one of the designated Co-I's. Such
            students should be identified by name if known when the
            proposal is submitted but may be designated only by function
            in those cases where their recruitment depends on the
            successful selection of the proposal. Note, however, that
            direct support for Undergraduate Students is nominally
            allowed only if [specifically]{.underline} stated in the
            NRA.

        -   [Consultant]{.underline} -- A Consultant is an individual
            who is critical to the completion of the proposed effort and
            is to be paid a fee for his/her services, which may include
            travel in order to consult with the PI, but who is not
            considered a sustaining "partner" in the proposed activities
            as is a Co-I (Note: the requirements for the proposal budget
            includes the identification, justification, and costs of all
            Consultants (see Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.11 below)).

        -   [Collaborator]{.underline} -- A Collaborator is an
            individual who is less critical to the proposal than a Co-I
            but who is committed to provide a focused but
            [unfunded]{.underline} contribution for a specific task
            (Note: if funding support is requested in the proposal, such
            a person must be identified in one of the other categories
            above). For a proposal that might be available for
            submission via Grants.gov, collaborators should be listed on
            the Project Role "Other" line of the Senior/Key Person
            portion of the R&R 424 form.

1.5 [Successor Proposals]{.underline} \[Ref.: Appendix B, Section (d)\]

Holders of existing research awards frequently submit follow-on or
"successor proposals" to successive NRAs that are issued for continued
pursuit of the same NASA program objectives in order to extend an
ongoing research activity to its next logical step. However, in order to
ensure equitable treatment of all submitted proposals, NASA does not
extend any special consideration to such successor proposals in terms of
preferential handling, review, or priority for selection. Therefore, all
proposals in response to an NRA are considered [new]{.underline}
regardless of their previous history of NASA funding and will be
reviewed on an equal basis with all other proposals submitted to the
NRA.

Such successor proposals are welcomed and encouraged, and may reference
the relevant achievements made during the course of the previous
award(s) in their Scientific/Technical/Management Section (see Section
2.3.5 below in this Guidebook). In addition, the Proposal Cover Page
(see Section 2.3.2) provides a space for entering the NASA identifier
number of any existing award that is a logical predecessor to the
successor proposal that is being submitted. If a successor proposal is
selected, it is NASA's preference to fund it through a new award,
although NASA reserves the right to fund the proposal by issuing an
amendment to the existing award. In either case, the starting date of a
successor award will follow the expiration date of the preceding award,
i.e., a successor award to the same PI at the same organization may not
overlap an existing award.

1.6 [Other Guidelines]{.underline}

1.6.1. Proposals Involving Non-U.S. Organizations \[Ref.: Appendix B,
Section (l)\]

NASA welcomes proposals that involve non-U.S. organizations including
proposals that request funds from NASA for support of qualified
participants. Such proposals may be from U.S. organizations with
participants employed by non-U.S. organizations or from non-U.S.
organizations with participants employed by U.S. organizations. In all
cases such proposals must be compliant with the policies stated in
Section (l) of Appendix B in this Guidebook.

For such proposals, it is critical for the sponsoring non-U.S.
organization or agency to certify that support for their own proposing
personnel will be forthcoming should the proposal be selected by NASA.
Such personnel may fill any of the roles defined in Section 1.4.2 above
except that of being a paid Consultant. Further details concerning
budgets of such proposals are given in Section 2.3.11(vii) of this
Guidebook. In addition, proposals that contain the participation of
non-U.S. personnel should be aware of an important provision as follows:

# **Export Control Guidelines Applicable to Foreign Proposals** 

> **and Proposals Including Foreign Participation**
>
> Foreign proposals and proposals including foreign participation must
> include a section discussing compliance with U.S. export laws and
> regulations, e.g., 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and 15 CFR Parts 730-774, as
> applicable to the circumstances surrounding the particular foreign
> participation. The discussion must describe in detail the proposed
> foreign participation and is to include, but not be limited to,
> whether or not the foreign participation may require the prospective
> proposer to obtain the prior approval of the Department of State or
> the Department of Commerce via a technical assistance agreement or an
> export license, or whether a license exemption/exception may apply. If
> prior approvals via licenses are necessary, discuss whether the
> license has been applied for or if not, the projected timing of the
> application and any implications for the schedule. Information
> regarding U.S. export regulations is available at the U.S. Department
> of State Web site [http://www.pmdtc.org](http://www.pmdtc.org/) and
> through the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and
> Security Web site at
> [http://www.bis.doc.gov](http://www.bis.doc.gov/). Proposers are
> advised that under U.S. law and regulations, spacecraft and their
> specifically designed, modified, or configured systems, components,
> and parts are generally considered "Defense Articles" on the United
> States Munitions List and subject to the provisions of the
> International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts
> 120-130.

Owing to these legal provisions and requirements, proposals involving
non-U.S. participants should be aware that such participation can add to
management complexity and risk, and, therefore, proposers should limit
such cooperative arrangements to those offering significant benefits
while maintaining the clearest and simplest possible technical and
management interfaces.

1.6.2 Export Control

NASA is also advising proposers that, under U.S. law and regulations,
spacecraft and their specifically designed, modified, or configured
systems, components, and parts are generally considered \"Defense
Articles\" on the United States Munitions List and subject to the
provisions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22
CFR Parts 120-130. Information regarding U.S. export regulations is
available at [[http://www.pmdtc.org]{.underline}](http://www.pmdtc.org/)
and at [[http://www.bis.doc.gov]{.underline}](http://www.bis.doc.gov/).
While explicit inclusion of such material in a proposal is not
prohibited it may, in some circumstances, complicate NASA's ability to
evaluate the proposal since occasionally NASA may use the services of
foreign nationals who are not lawful permanent residents of the U.S. to
review proposals submitted in response to this NRA. Therefore, proposers
to this NRA are strongly encouraged not to include material subject to
the provisions of ITAR in their proposals, although the effort being
proposed may itself be subject to ITAR (see Web sites noted above). If
it is essential to include any export controlled information subject to
ITAR in a proposal, a notice to that effect must be prominently
displayed on the first page of the proposal that shall state:

The information (data) contained in \[insert page numbers or other
identification\] of this proposal is (are) subject to U.S. export laws
and regulations. It is furnished to the Government with the
understanding that it will not be exported without the prior approval of
the proposer under the terms of an applicable export license or
technical assistance agreement.

Note that it is the responsibly of the proposer to determine whether any
proposal information is subject to the provisions of ITAR.

1.7 [Guidelines for Proposal Preparation]{.underline}

NASA's extensive experience in the review of proposals submitted in
response to a wide variety of program announcements has shown that the
following guidelines are valuable in helping to ensure the submission of
a valid, competitive proposal:

-   Follow the instructions in the specific NRA of interest with care in
    order to respond to the opportunity as published, since NASA is
    legally obligated to review and select proposals in accordance with
    their published provisions.

-   Clearly state the objectives of the proposal and its implementation
    plan so that both NASA and the peer reviewers can easily understand
    what is proposed to be done and how it will be accomplished.

-   Strive to ensure that the proposal clearly addresses the advertised
    objectives as stated in the NRA, since NASA is a program-oriented
    Agency that is obligated to sponsor only that research that supports
    its goals and objectives as stated in its strategic plans and
    research solicitations.

-   If proposing innovative work in a new or emerging field, strive to
    achieve a balance between the provision of tutorial material and the
    description of the new activities being proposed.

-   Provide appropriate recognition of preceding accomplishments,
    demonstrate knowledge of the literature by citing key recent,
    significant publications in the field, and show how the proposed
    activity will extend and build on what has already been accomplished
    (whether by the proposer or by others).

-   Proof read the proposal carefully before submission, and, if at all
    possible, ask a colleague to critically review it for completeness
    and comprehensibility; strive for a quality and clarity of text
    comparable to that for an article to be submitted to a peer-reviewed
    journal.

-   Keep the proposal as short as possible consistent with completeness
    and understandability; use legible printer fonts and illustrations
    and a clear, simple organization.

-   Propose fresh, new ideas rather than slight modifications of
    proposals that may have been rejected in previous competitions
    (Note: simply revising a proposal to meet deficiencies identified in
    a previous review(s) does [not]{.underline} necessarily guarantee a
    higher rating, since reviewers are rarely the same, NASA objectives
    evolve, and fields of research mature, all over a period as short as
    one year).

-   Include all requested proposal information in its specified order
    and in compliance with stated page limits.

-   Strive for realism as well as adequacy of the requested budget, and
    provide all the details necessary to justify and facilitate
    understanding of the proposed costs (Note: a relatively low cost
    does not necessarily provide a competitive advantage to a proposal
    unless all other factors are equal; likewise, a proposal judged to
    be of especially high science/technical merit is not necessarily
    rejected because it requests a budget beyond the norm advertised for
    the program).

**2. [PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND ORGANIZATION]{.underline}**

2.1 [Overview]{.underline}

It is expected that this Guidebook will be updated as required.
Therefore, each NRA will explicitly identify the edition date of this
Guidebook that should be followed to ensure the submission of a valid
proposal, and material contained in the Guidebook will not be repeated
in the individual NRAs. Any deviations from the Guidebook will be
clearly identified in the NRA but will only be introduced if needed for
the unique needs of the program being solicited.

Since January of 2005, NASA has started to use its updated proposal and
evaluation automated management system known as NSPIRES. NSPIRES is
designed to be capable of receiving full electronic proposals directly
(or through Grants.gov for those NRA solicitations that will not be
exclusively awarding contracts. It is expected, however, that a phased
implementation of NSPIRES capabilities will occur. Please examine each
solicitation (or element thereof for any omnibus solicitation) to verify
the extent to which NSPIRES capabilities will be employed. NSPIRES will
provide extensive assistance for offerors, including on-line assistance
and a help desk.

Guidance to the information requested on the required Proposal Cover
Page, which includes a Budget Summary and is needed for NRAs that
reference this Guidebook, is given below. The address on the World Wide
Web for the direct electronic access to and submission of this Proposal
Cover Page is http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/. Note that access
into this Web site requires that the user initially register with their
name and organizational address, after which they are given an
identification ID and password that allows immediate future log-in
access. Once access is gained into the data system, access for
application to a given NRA is provided through a menu entitled
"*Solicitations*" then accessing the link *"Open Solicitations"* If you
intend to submit a proposal, users should use the NSPIRES registration
module to affiliate with an organization. Affiliation is a two-way
relationship that requires the approval of the targeted organization.
Organizations may take some time to respond to requests for
affiliations. NASA now requires that an organization, rather than a
Principal Investigator submit proposals. This may introduce extra time
into the proposal preparation and submission cycle. When preparing a
proposal in NSPIRES, online help, as well as a Help Desk that can be
reached by telephone may be used to address questions or issues in
proposal preparation. For proposals prepared in Calendar Year 2005, we
expect most NASA solicitations using NSPIRES will still require a paper
copy to be printed and submitted. You should review the solicitation
document submission instructions (and individual element instructions
for an omnibus solicitation) to ensure you comply with the precise
submission requirements for that solicitation. Be certain to verify you
are using the correct mailing address for any hard copies of a proposal
being submitted.

It is NASA policy that proposals should not contain security classified
material (see also Appendix B, Part (c)(9) in this Guidebook). However,
should the project proposed require access to classified information, or
should the result of the project generate such material, the proposer
shall comply with all Government security regulations.

2.2 [Standard Proposal Style Formats]{.underline}

NSPIRES provides for printing of a hardcopy proposal when mandated by
the solicitation that will typically satisfy many of NASA's formatting
requirements. Unless otherwise specified in the NRA of interest, the
standard formats for a proposal submitted in response to all NRAs issued
by NASA are as follows:

-   Single-spaced, typewritten, English-language text, formatted using
    one or two columns, and using an easily read font having no more
    than \~15 characters per inch (typically 12-point font);

-   White 8.5 x 11 inch paper with at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) margins on
    all sides (Note: non-U.S. proposals may be submitted on A4 paper
    with 2.5 cm margins at the top and sides, and 4 cm at the bottom).

-   Bound only with metal staples to facilitate recycling (i.e., no
    loose leaf binders or cardboard, plastic, or permanent covers);

-   An easily disassembled, one-sided original copy (to enable NASA to
    make additional copies, if needed);

-   Double-sided printing for proposal copies (preferred but not
    required);

-   Use of fold out pages, colored illustrations, and/or photographs
    only as needed for the display of unique and critically important
    proposal data (Note: if such formats are used, all copies of the
    proposal must also include the same materials);

-   No material submitted on [any]{.underline} type of electronic media
    other than through NSPIRES, nor by reference to sites on the World
    Wide Web for information or material needed to either complete or to
    understand the proposal;

-   Use of only metric and standard discipline-unique units unless
    referring to existing hardware fabricated in English units or where
    the fabrication of proposed hardware using metric units would be
    cost prohibitive (Note: if English units are used, approximate
    metric units shall also be used as reference); and

-   Adherence to the page limits given in this Guidebook, unless
    otherwise specified in the NRA or preformatted in NSPIRES, for all
    sections of the proposal (see Section 2.3 below).

2.3 [Proposal Contents]{.underline}

2.3.1 Overview of Proposal

Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, a proposal should be assembled
with the items given in the following table and as guided in the NSPIRES
system, using the page limits provided herein. Proposals that omit
required materials or that exceed the page limits may be returned
without review. In some cases an NRA may specify exceptions to these
page limits, especially to that allowed for the
*Scientific/Technical/Management Section*. This table is followed by a
discussion of each individual subsection of a proposal that is also
cross-referenced to the corresponding subpart in the standard NASA
guidance for proposals contained in Appendix B of this Guidebook.

CONSTITUENT PARTS OF A PROPOSAL PAGE LIMIT

(in order of assembly)

-   *NSPIRES Proposal Cover Page* As printed from NASA proposal Internet
    site.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Table of Contents* 1

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Curriculum Vitae for: the Principal Investigator* 2

> *for each Co-Investigator* 1

*Current and Pending Support* As needed

-   *Co-I and/or Collaborator Commitments* As needed.

-   *Budget Justification* (incl. Proposing As needed.

> Organization Budget)

-   *Facilities and Equipment* (if applicable to proposal) 2

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Summary of Personnel and Work Efforts* 1

-   *Scientific/Technical/Management Section* 15\*

-   *References and Citations* As needed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Special Notifications and/or Certifications* As needed.

*Reprint(s)/Preprint(s)* Not allowed
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\* includes all illustrations, tables, and figures, where each
\"n-page\" fold-out counts as n-pages and each side of a sheet
containing text or an illustration counts as a page.

2.3.2 Proposal Cover Page and Budget Summary

> \[Ref.: Appendix B, Part (c)(1) & (c)(3)\]

All proposals will be prepared using the NSPIRES *Proposal Cover Page*
that is available electronically through the World Wide Web at
<http://nspires.nasaprs.com/>. Once access is gained into the data
system, access for application to a given NRA is provided through a menu
entitled "*Solicitations*" then accessing the link *"Open
Solicitations".* Any proposer who experiences difficulty in using the
specified Web site or who cannot access the Web may request assistance
by E-mail to <nspires-help@nasaprs.com> or by calling the help desk,
Monday thru Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST at (202) 479-9376.

After this item is prepared and submitted electronically, it is then
available for printing in hard copy in order to obtain the authorizing
original signatures of the Authorized Organizational Representative. As
directed in the solicitation, the signed copy must be submitted with the
original copy of the proposal on or before the proposal due date unless
electronic submission is specified in the solicitation. In addition,
reproductions of the signed *Proposal Cover Page* are used to preface
the required printed copies of the proposal. (Note that NSPIRES
automatically assigns a unique proposal identifier code to each entry.
This NSPIRES number is used by NASA throughout the proposal review and
selection process to uniquely identify the proposal and its associated
electronic data. (*If no NSPIRES number appears on the Proposal Cover
Page, then it has not been submitted finally and correctly through the
NSPIRES system.)*

At a minimum, the following information will be requested to complete
the *Proposal Cover Page* although additional programmatic information
may also be requested on the form depending on the unique needs of the
NRA. All of this information is needed in order for NASA to complete a
financial award with the proposing organization should the proposal be
selected for funding; therefore, it is extremely important that it be
provided accurately and completely (*Note: additional information unique
to the needs of the solicited program may also be specified).*

[Section I]{.underline}

-   [PI Information]{.underline}. Provide the name and full mailing
    address of the Principal Investigator, including his/her specific
    Division or Mail Stop as appropriate, and E-mail address, telephone
    number, and facsimile (Fax) number (Note: once the PI enters his/her
    name, this information will be provided automatically from the data
    base using the information previously submitted when registering as
    a user in this system.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Proposal Title. Provide a Full Title of the proposed investigation,
    which should not exceed 254 characters in length, and is
    intelligible to a scientifically literate reader and suitable for
    use in the public press.

-   [Proposed Start/End Dates]{.underline}. Provide the desired
    approximate starting and ending dates of the period of performance
    of the proposal (Note: as indicated in Section 3.4 in this
    Guidebook, the Start Date should be at least 200 days after the
    Proposal Due Date unless otherwise specified in the NRA, and the
    maximum period of performance for research allowed by most NRAs is
    three years unless otherwise indicated).

-   [Budget Totals]{.underline}. Show total budget requested and amount
    requested for each budget year if a multi-year proposal.

[Section II]{.underline}

-   [Application Information]{.underline} Provide required information
    on NASA Announcement Number and Title, as well as the additional
    specific reference information requested on the NSPIRES form.

-   [Predecessor Information.]{.underline} Provide the alpha-numeric
    Award Number and Title of any existing NASA research award for which
    the newly proposed work is submitted as a successor proposal (see
    Section 1.5 of this Guidebook).

[Section III]{.underline}

[Submitting Organization Provide the DUNS number, CAGE code, EIN or TIN,
and submitting organization name and address. Information on DUNS, CAGE
and EIN/TIN numbers is provided below:]{.underline}

-   [Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), Data Universal Numbering System
    (DUNS)]{.underline}. Every organization (or Unaffiliated Individual;
    see Section 1.4.1 in this Guidebook) that submits a proposal to a
    U.S. agency must obtain a permanently assigned DUNS number from D&B.
    NASA requires that this DUNS number be submitted with the proposal
    cover page. Potential applicants may call D&B at 1-866-705-5711 to
    register and obtain a DUNS number. The process to request a DUNS
    number takes about 10 minutes and is free of charge. Potential
    applicants may also register for their DUNS number at Dun &
    Bradstreet\'s web site:
    <https://www.dnb.com/product/eupdate/requestOptions.html>. Click on
    the link that reads, "DUNS Number only" at the right hand, bottom
    corner of the screen to access the free registration page. Please
    note that registration via the web site may take up to fourteen
    business days to complete.

-   [Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code]{.underline}. Every
    organization (or Unaffiliated Individual; see Section 1.4.1 in this
    Guidebook) that submits a proposal to a U.S. agency must register
    with the Department of Defense Central Contractor Registration (CCR)
    database for a permanently assigned CAGE number. Information for
    registering in the CCR and online documents can be found at
    [http://www.ccr.gov](http://www.ccr.gov/).

-   [Employer Identification Number (EIN) or Taxpayer Identification
    Number (TIN)]{.underline}. Every U.S. organization (or Unaffiliated
    Individual; see Section 1.4.1 in this Guidebook) that submits a
    proposal to a U.S. agency must provide their permanently-assigned
    EIN or TIN in compliance with 31 U.S. Code 7702(c)(1). Information
    to obtain a EIN or TIN can be found at http://www.irs.gov.

-   [Organization Type]{.underline}: Specify the type of organization
    submitting the proposal using one of the categories defined in
    Section 1.4.1 of this Guidebook.

[Section IV]{.underline}

-   Provide the e-mail address for the person that will serve as the
    principal point of contact for answering questions about the
    proposal.

[Section V]{.underline}

This section provides the certifications and assurances required for
every proposal submitted under the NRA. This section must include the
name, e-mail address and phone number of the authorized organizational
representative (AOR) that has authority to bind the organization to the
terms of the proposal. Signature of the AOR also certifies the
organization has read and is in compliance with all Federally required
Assurances and Certifications (Note: for reference only, all currently
required Certifications are printed in full in Section E.1, Appendix E,
of this Guidebook; however, the NRA may specify additional applicable
certifications that must also be submitted).

[Section VI]{.underline}

-   [Team Members]{.underline}. A table is provided by NSPIRES for
    listing all supporting Proposal Personnel by the Role they are
    expected to play in the proposal based on the categories given in
    Section 1.4.2 in this Guidebook, including their Names,
    Organizations, E-mail Addresses, and Telephone numbers (Note: these
    individuals [must]{.underline} each register him/herself in the
    NSPIRES system in order to be listed in this section; the proposing
    PI may [not]{.underline} register someone as a Team Member).
    Participation by U.S. Government agencies or their personnel must be
    noted in the spaces provided, as well as the amount of funding
    designated for that government agency in the proposal. Specify via a
    Yes/No designation whether the proposal involves participation by
    any personnel employed by any agency of the U.S. Government,
    including any of NASA's Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
    If the answer is "Yes," provide the participant's Government agency
    affiliation, and total dollar amount requested (if any) for their
    participation in the proposal. Note that all costs for this
    participation [must]{.underline} also be shown in the Budget Summary
    (see below), as well as be supported by appropriate details in the
    proposal's Budget Justification (see Section 2.3.11 in this
    Guidebook).

[Section VII]{.underline}

-   [Proposal Summary]{.underline}. Using \~2500 characters, including
    spaces, or less (about half a page using the standard style formats
    for proposal text given in Section 2.2 of this Guidebook) provide
    the following key information:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A description of the key, central objectives of the proposal in
    terms understandable to a nonspecialist;

-   A concise statement of the methods/techniques proposed to accomplish
    the stated research objectives; and

-   A statement of the perceived significance of the proposed work to
    the objectives of the NRA and to NASA interests and programs in
    general. (Note: NASA intends to publish the proposal's full title,
    the PI's name and organization, and the Proposal Summary of every
    selected investigation in a publicly accessible data base;
    therefore, the Proposal Summary should not include proprietary
    information that would preclude its unrestricted release (see also
    Appendix B, Parts (a)(2) and (c)(2) of this Guidebook.)

[Section VIII]{.underline}

-   Proprietary/privileged information. State whether your application
    includes information that should be considered proprietary or
    privileged. Briefly indicate where such information is included in
    your proposal.

-   [International Collaboration]{.underline}: Specify via a
    [Yes/No]{.underline} designation whether the proposal involves
    participation by any personnel employed by a non-U.S. organization.
    Provide a brief explanation of the nature of, and need for, the
    international collaboration. (Note: if such personnel are involved,
    signed letters of support from their sponsoring organizations or
    agencies are required; see Sections 1.6 and 2.3.11(vii) in this
    Guidebook).

-   NASA Civil Servant Project Personnel. Answer with a yes or no the
    question of whether NASA Civil Servant personnel will work on the
    proposed project. Provide the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
    NASA personnel to be used on the project for each fiscal year of the
    proposal. NASA requires this information to comply with an Office of
    Management and Budget request for data on NASA civil service
    personnel subject to open competitions such as an NRA.

-   Environmental Impact. Answer the question about actual or potential
    environmental impact and the question regarding environmental
    assessment or environmental impact statement with a yes or no.
    Provide sufficient information in the space provided for an
    explanation of environmental impact so that NASA may determine what
    actions, if any, the agency will be required to perform per NEPA
    requirements.

-   Answer the historic site/object impact question with a yes or no
    answer, and then provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of any
    impact to assist NASA in fulfilling its duties under federal
    historic preservation laws.

[Section IX]{.underline}

-   [Budget Summary]{.underline}: Fill in the tables as presented, which
    requires the total amounts for each of the following items for each
    year of the proposed period of performance, as well as for the total
    proposed effort, as supported by the Budget Details portion of the
    proposal (see Section 2.3.11 below in this Guidebook for further
    instructions about each item):

Categories of Entries for Budget Summary

> Direct Labor -- KEy Personnel
>
> Direct Labor -- Other Personnel
>
> Direct Costs -- Equipment
>
> Direct Costs -- travel
>
> direct costs -- participant/trainee support costs
>
> Other Direct Costs

-   Materials and Supplies

-   Publication costs

-   Consultant services

-   ADP/computer services

-   Subawards/consortium/contractual costs

> -- Equipment or facility rental/user fees
>
> \- Alterations and renovations

-- Other INDIRECT COSTS

> FEE
>
> tOTAL cOST (Budget Total)

Special conditions and instructions concerning the *Proposal Cover
Page*:

\(i\) Electronic submission of only the *Proposal Cover Page* does not
satisfy the deadline for proposal submission. If the solicitation
expressly states that only authenticated electronic proposals
(electronically authorized by the AOR) are to be submitted, and all
required attachments are also supplied electronically with a complete
cover page by the submission due date, then the proposal will be
considered complete. When hard copy submission is required, however, the
required number of copies of the proposal (as specified in the NRA)
including a printed copy of the *Proposal Cover Page* (with the NSPIRES
assigned proposal number, see Section 2.3.2 above), one with original
signature, must be received at the indicated address by close of
business (4:30 p.m. Eastern Time) on the proposal due date (Note: see
Section (g) of Appendix B, as well as Section 3.2, both in this
Guidebook, for NASA policy on late proposals).

\(ii\) Physical changes (such as whiteout or strikethrough) of any kind
to the printed version of a *Proposal Cover Page* that has been
electronically submitted are not permitted. Any needed changes may only
be made by editing the electronic version following the instructions on
its Web site, after which the revised *Proposal Cover Page* is then
printed for purposes of securing the necessary signatures (Note: for
this reason, it is recommended that this item be produced from the
specified Web site well in advance of the proposal due date).

2.3.3 Table of Contents

The one-page *Table of Contents* should provide a guide to the
organization and contents of the proposal. This item may also
incorporate customized formats of the proposer's own choosing, e.g.,
identification of the submitting organization through use of letterhead
stationary, project logos, etc. NSPIRES may provide some assistance in
preparing your Table of Contents but you are responsible for its
accuracy.

2.3.4 Summary of Proposal Personnel and Work Efforts

The item must provide a summary list, using a tabular format of the
proposer's own choosing, of the names and planned work commitments (in
units of a percentage of a nominal full time work year of the PI and of
every Co-I in the proposed investigation for whom salary support is
requested for each year of the proposed period of performance. For the
purpose of identifying work commitment only, a work year will be based
on 1840 hours of productive effort -- this work commitment information
should NOT change your use of your institution's standard financial
practices for budget submittal purposes.

2.3.5 Scientific/Technical/Management Section

> \[Ref.: Appendix B, Parts (c)(4), (c)(5), and in-part (c)(6)\]

As the main body of the proposal, this section must cover the following
topics in the order given, all within the specified page limit (unless
otherwise specified, the limit is 15 pages using the default values
given in Section 2.3.1 above):

-   The objectives and expected significance of the proposed research,
    especially as related to the objectives given in the NRA;

-   The technical approach and methodology to be employed in conducting
    the proposed research, including a description of any hardware
    proposed to be built in order to carry out the research, as well as
    any special facilities of the proposing organization(s) and/or
    capabilities of the proposer(s) that would be used for carrying out
    the work (Note: see also Section 2.3.7, *Facilities and Equipment*,
    below concerning the description of critical existing equipment
    needed for carrying out the proposed research, and the Instructions
    for the *Budget Summary* in Section 2.3.11 for further discussion of
    costing details needed for proposals involving significant hardware,
    software, and/or ground systems development, and, as may be allowed
    by an NRA, proposals for flight instruments);

-   The perceived impact of the proposed work to the state of knowledge
    in the field and, if the proposal is offered as a direct successor
    to an existing NASA award, how the proposed work is expected to
    build on and otherwise extend previous accomplishments supported by
    NASA;

-   The relevance of the proposed work to past, present, and/or future
    NASA programs and interests or to the specific objectives given in
    the NRA;

-   A general plan of work, including anticipated key milestones for
    accomplishments, the management structure for the proposal
    personnel, any substantial collaboration(s) and/or use of
    consultant(s) that is(are) proposed to complete the investigation;
    and a description of the expected contribution to the proposed
    effort by the PI and each person as identified in one of the
    additional categories in Section 1.4.2, regardless of whether or not
    they derive support from the proposed budget.

The *Scientific/Technical/Management Section* may contain illustrations
and figures that amplify and demonstrate key points of the proposal
(including milestone schedules, as appropriate). However, they must be
of an easily-viewed size, and have self-contained captions that do not
contain critical information not provided elsewhere in the proposal.

2.3.6 References and Citations

All references and citations given in the
*Scientific/Technical/Management Section* must be provided using easily
understood, standard abbreviations for journals and complete names for
books. It is highly preferred but not required that these references
include the full title of the cited paper or report.

2.3.7 Facilities and Equipment \[Ref.: Appendix B, Part (c)(7)\]

This section should describe any facilities (including any owned by the
U.S. Government) and/or test or experiment equipment valued over \$5,000
that are critical for carrying out the proposed project, whether it is
already available or would need to be purchased. Before requesting an
item of capital equipment, the proposer should determine if sharing or
loan of equipment already within the organization is a feasible
alternative and, if not, why such arrangements cannot be made. The need
for general purpose items that typically can be used for research and
nonresearch purposes should be explained. Proposed costs for purchased
facilities, tooling, or equipment must be entered in the proposal
*Budget Summary* and described in the *Budget Details* (see Section
2.3.11 below in this Guidebook).

2.3.8 Curriculum Vitae \[Ref.: Appendix B: Part (c)(6)\]

The Principal Investigator must include a *curriculum vitae* (not to
exceed two pages) that includes his/her professional experiences and
positions and a bibliography of recent publications, especially those
relevant to the proposed investigation. A one-page vitae for each
Co-Investigator must also be included (Note: any Co-I also serving in
one of the three special Co-I categories defined in Section 1.4.2 may
use the same two page limit as for the PI).

2.3.9 Current and Pending Support \[Ref.: Appendix B, Part (c)(10)\]

Information must be provided for all ongoing and pending projects and
proposals that involve the proposing PI. This information is also
preferred but not required for any Co-Is who are proposed to perform a
significant share (\>10 percent) of the proposed work. This information
must be provided for each such individual for each of the following two
categories of awards that may exist at the time of the proposal
submission deadline, namely,

A. [Current Awards]{.underline} (for any of the period that overlaps
with the submitted proposal), and

> B. [Pending Awards]{.underline} (including the proposal being
> submitted to NASA).

For each of these two categories, and using a format of the proposer's
own choosing, provide the following information:

-   Title of award or project title;

-   Program name (if appropriate) and sponsoring agency or organization,
    including a point of contact with his/her telephone number and
    E-mail address;

-   Performance period and total budget; and

-   Commitment by PI (or Co-I) in terms of a fraction of a full time
    Work Year.

For pending research proposals involving substantially the same kind of
research as that being proposed to NASA in this proposal, the proposing
PI must notify the NASA Program Officer identified for the NRA
immediately of any successful proposals that are awarded anytime after
the Proposal Due Date and until the time that NASA's selections are
announced.

2.3.10 Statement(s) of Commitment

> Every Co-Investigator and Collaborator (see definitions in Section
> 1.4.2 of this Guidebook) identified as a participant in the proposal's
> *Scientific/Technical/Management Section* must submit a brief, signed
> statement of commitment that acknowledges his/her intended
> participation in the proposed effort. In the case of more than one
> Co-I or Collaborator, a single statement signed by all participants
> may be submitted. In any case, each statement must be addressed to the
> PI, may be a facsimile of an original statement or the copy of an
> E-mail (the latter must have sufficient information to unambiguously
> identify the sender), and is required even if the Co-I or Collaborator
> is from the PI organization. An example of such a statement follows:
>
> \"I (we) acknowledge that I(we) am(are) identified by name as
> Co-Investigator(s) \[and/or Collaborator(s)\] to the investigation,
> entitled \<name of proposal\>, that is submitted by \<name of
> Principal Investigator\> to the NASA Research Announcement
> \<alpha-numeric identifier\>, and that I(we) intend to carry out all
> responsibilities identified for me(us) in this proposal. I(we)
> understand that the extent and justification of my(our) participation
> as stated in this proposal will be considered during peer review in
> determining in part the merits of this proposal.\"

The NSPIRES proposal management system also allows for participants
named on the Proposal Cover Page to acknowledge a statement of
commitment electronically through the NSPIRES system.

2.3.11 Budget Details \[Ref.: Appendix B, Part (c)(8)\]

2.3.11(a) Instructions for *Budget Summary*

The *Proposal Cover Page* that is submitted electronically through the
World Wide Web (see Section 2.3.2 above in this Guidebook) contains a
*Budget Summary* that must be provided for each year of the proposed
effort and supported by appropriate narrative material in compliance
with the following instructions.

# INSTRUCTIONS FOR BUDGET SUMMARY

> 1\. Direct Labor (salaries, wages, and fringe benefits): Attachments
> should list the number and titles of personnel, amounts of time to be
> devoted to the grant, and rates of pay.
>
> 2\. Other Direct Costs:
>
> a\. [Subcontracts]{.underline}: Attachments should describe the work
> to be subcontracted, estimated amount, recipient (if known), and the
> reason for subcontracting.
>
> b\. [Consultants]{.underline}: Identify consultants to be used, why
> they are necessary, the time they will spend on the project, and rates
> of pay (not to exceed the equivalent of the daily rate for Level IV of
> the Executive Schedule, exclusive of expenses and indirect costs). The
> Executive Schedule is located at
> http://www.opm.gov/oca/05tables/indexSES.aspNote: If OMB updates the
> executive rate schedule, the limit shall be that of the most current
> schedule..
>
> c\. [Equipment]{.underline}: List separately. Explain the need for
> items costing more than \$5,000. Describe basis for estimated cost.
> General purpose equipment is not allowable as a direct cost unless
> specifically approved by the NASA Grant Officer. Any general purpose
> equipment purchase requested to be made as a direct charge under this
> award must include the equipment description, how it will be used in
> the conduct of the basic research proposed and include a written
> certification that the equipment will be used exclusively for
> research, activities.
>
> d\. [Supplies]{.underline}: Provide general categories of needed
> supplies, the method of acquisition, and the estimated cost.
>
> e\. [Travel]{.underline}: Describe the purpose of the proposed travel
> in relation to the grant and provide the basis of estimate, including
> information on destination and number of travelers where known.
>
> f\. [Other]{.underline}: Enter the total of direct costs not covered
> by 2a through 2e. Attach an itemized list explaining the need for each
> item and the basis for the estimate.

3\. Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs: Identify F&A cost rate(s)
and base(s) as approved by the cognizant Federal agency, including the
effective period of the rate. Provide the name, address, and telephone
number of the Federal agency official having cognizance. If unapproved
rates are used, explain why, and include the computational basis for the
indirect expense pool and corresponding allocation base for each rate.

> 4\. Other Applicable Costs: Enter total explaining the need for each
> item.
>
> 5\. Subtotal-Estimated Costs: Enter the sum of items 1 through 4.
>
> 6\. Less Proposed Cost Sharing (if any): Enter any amount proposed. If
> cost sharing is based on specific cost items, identify each item and
> amount in an attachment.
>
> 7\. Total Estimated Costs: Enter the total after subtracting items 6
> and 7 from item 5.

2.3.11(b) Special Budget Considerations

In complying with the requirements of the Budget Summary and for
providing adequate additional information to understand its entries, the
following additional important NASA procurement policies apply:

\(i\) [Purchase of Personal Computers and/or Software]{.underline}. Note
the discussion of item \"2.c. Equipment\" on the Instructions above
regarding the proposed purchase of personal computers and/or commercial
software. Such items are usually considered by NASA to be general
purpose equipment that must be purchased from general organizational
overhead budgets and not directly from the proposal budget unless it can
be demonstrated that such items are to be used uniquely and only for the
proposed research. If a proposal is selected for award, failure to
adequately address the provisions of the instructions for item 2.c will
require that NASA contact the proposing organization for the required
information. Such activity may delay the award until the purchase is
justified as a direct charge for general purpose equipment to be used
exclusively for research activities.

\(ii\) [Joint Proposals Involving a Mix of U.S. Government and
Non-Government Organizations]{.underline}.

\(a\) If a PI from any type of private or public organization proposes
to team with a Co-I from and/or use a facility at a U.S. Government
organization (including NASA Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory),
then any required budget for that Government Co-I and/or facility should
be included in the proposal's *Budget Details* and should be listed as
\"Other Applicable Costs\" in the required *Budget Summary*. If the
proposal is selected, NASA will execute an inter- or intra-Agency
transfer of funds, as appropriate, to cover the applicable costs at that
Government organization.

\(b\) If a PI from a U.S. Government organization (including NASA
Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory) proposes to team with a Co-I
from a non-Government organization, then the proposing Government
organization must cover those Co-I costs through an appropriate award
for which that Government PI organization is responsible. Such
non-Government Co-I costs should be entered as a \"Subcontract\" on the
Budget Summary.

\(iii\) [Responsibility of the Proposing Organization to Place Subawards
for Co-I's at Other Organizations]{.underline}. Other than the special
cases discussed in item (ii) above, and unless specifically noted
otherwise in the NRA, the proposing PI organization must subcontract the
funding of all proposed Co-I's who reside at other non-Government
organizations, even though this may result in a higher proposal cost
because of subcontracting fees.

\(iv\) [Full-Cost Accounting at NASA Centers]{.underline}. NASA is now
operating using full cost budgeting, accounting, and management
practices. Therefore, all research proposals originating from a NASA
Center or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory must be submitted with fully
loaded costs including procurement, civil service labor, travel, service
pools, center G&A, and corporate G&A. In compliance with the full cost
policies,. proposals that are submitted by non-NASA organizations but
that involve a NASA organization must ensure that any NASA costs are
fully documented in compliance with full cost accounting. The web
address for NASA's Full Cost Initiative is:
<http://www.hq.nasa.gov/fullcost>.

\(v\) [Unallowable Costs]{.underline}. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Circulars A-21 and A-122, and the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) at 48 CFR Part 31, identify certain costs that may not
be included in a proposed budget. The use of appropriated funds for such
purposes are unallowable and may lead to cancellation of the award and
possible criminal charges. Grant recipients should be aware of cost
principles applicable to their organization as set forth in the above
regulations.

\(vi\) [Prohibition of the Use of NASA Funds for Non-U.S.
Research]{.underline}. NASA's policy welcomes the opportunity to conduct
research with non-U.S. organizations on a cooperative,
no-exchange-of-funds basis. Although Co-Is or collaborators employed by
non-U.S. organizations may be identified as part of a proposal submitted
by a U.S. organization, NASA funding may not normally be used to support
research efforts by non-U.S. organizations at any level; however, the
direct purchase of supplies and/or services that do not constitute
research from non-U.S. sources by U.S. award recipients is permitted.
See also Section (l) of Appendix B.

\(vii\) [Proposals from non-U.S. PI organizations that propose the
funding of U.S. Co-Is]{.underline}. A proposal submitted by a non-U.S.
organization that involves U.S. Co-Is for whom NASA funding is requested
must provide the budgets for those U.S. Co-Is in compliance with all
applicable provisions in this Section 2.3.11. In addition, compliance is
required by the proposing non-U.S. organization with the provisions of
Section (l) of Appendix B.

2.3.12 Special Notifications and/or Certifications

> \[Ref.: Appendix B, Part (c)(11)\]

2.3.12(a) Special Notifications and/or Certifications

Some NRAs may require proposals to include special notifications or
certifications regarding the impact of research including, e.g.,
environmental, human, or animal care provisions, conflicts of interest,
or other topics as may be required by statute, Executive Order, or
Government policies. Compliance with such requirements is important to
ensure submission of a complete proposal, and such items must be
included in this section of the proposal.

2.3.12(b) Personnel from Non-U.S. Organizations

If any of the proposal's personnel are from a non-U.S. organization,
appropriately signed letter(s) of certification must be included that
verifies that their support will be provided by a responsible
organization(s) or government agency(ies) should the proposal be
selected by NASA.

2.3.13 Reprint(s)/Preprint(s)

Reprints and/or preprints are not permitted to be appended to a proposal
unless they are accommodated within the proposal page limit. All
information and material necessary for an informed peer review of the
proposal must be included within the proposal in a manner that is
compliant with the proposal page limit and permitted appendices.

**3. [PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCEDURES]{.underline}**

3.1 [Notice of Intent (NOI) to Propose]{.underline}

To plan for and expedite the review process, and thus minimize the time
required for announcement of selections, all NRAs released by NASA
Headquarters that reference this Guidebook will request that an optional
Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose be submitted by typically no later
than about 60 days prior to the Proposal Due Date. Although the
information in a NOI is not binding on the submitter, it should be as
accurate and complete as possible by its due date. An NOI is submitted
by logging into [NSPIRES](http://proposals.hq.nasa.govNSPIRES/) at
[http://nspires.nasaprs.com](http://nspires.nasaprs.com/) and then
clicking on the "Proposals" link. Offeror's must be registered with
NSPIRES to create and submit an NOI. Space is provided for the applicant
to provide, at a minimum, the following information, although the
additional special requests may also be indicated:

-   A Short Title of the anticipated proposal (50 characters or less);

-   A Full Title of the anticipated proposal (which should not exceed
    254 characters and is of a nature that is understandable by a
    scientifically trained person);

-   A brief description of the primary research area(s) and objective(s)
    of the anticipated investigation (Note: the information in this item
    does not constrain in any way the Proposal Summary that must be
    submitted with the final proposal); and

-   The names of any Co-Investigators and/or Collaborators as may be
    known by the time the NOI is submitted (Note: in order to enter such
    names, such team members [must]{.underline} have previously accessed
    and registered in this NASA data system themselves; a PI cannot do
    this for them). After completing the indicated fields the NOI, is
    then electronically submitted (Note: a copy may be printed for
    reference).

Although it is most helpful to NASA if the NOI is submitted by the
specified due date, a late NOI is still of value since the receipt of
even a few unanticipated proposals can significantly delay and/or
complicate the review process. A late NOI that contains (i) the name and
identifier for the NRA of interest, (ii) the name and address of the
applicant, and (iii) the key information listed above for an NOI may be
submitted by E-mail directly to:
[http://nspires.nasaprs.com](http://nspires.nasaprs.com/).

3.2 [On-Time and Late Proposals]{.underline}

Each NRA will prominently list the deadline for proposal submission in
the NRAs prefatory Summary of Solicitation. The required number of
copies of the proposal (the default is 15 copies unless otherwise
specified in the NRA), plus the signed original, must be received by the
close of business (4:30 p.m. Eastern Time) on the Proposal Due Date as
specified in the NRA's Summary of Solicitation. Note that a postmark or
other evidence of submission for delivery in advance of or on the Due
Date does [not]{.underline} satisfy the requirement for on-time delivery
of a proposal. In addition, delivery by any method to any address other
than the one specified in the NRA may result in the proposal being
declared late (see further below). NASA does not accept proposals sent
by collect postage, nor is NASA responsible for delayed delivery by
commercial services or the United States Postal Service.

Proposers should be aware that neither NASA personnel nor the employees
of support contractor that receives and handles proposals for NASA are
empowered to authorize the submission of a late proposal and, therefore,
[such permission should not be requested]{.underline}. The decision to
submit a late proposal is [solely]{.underline} that of the proposer, and
it is then NASA's decision whether to accept it or not. Late proposals
may be considered for review and possible selection only if they appear
to offer a distinct benefit to NASA (see Appendix B, Part (g), in this
Guidebook). In this regard it is important to note that since almost
every NRA receives many more high quality proposals than can be
supported with the available funds, a determination by NASA that a late
proposal is of distinct benefit over its competitors is likely to be
rare.

3.3 [Submission of Proposals]{.underline}

In order to prepare a fully compliant proposal, it is necessary to
electronically complete, submit, and then print a Proposal Cover Page
from the World Wide Web site <http://nspires.nasaprs.com/>. Submission
of the Proposal Cover Page is not complete until the NSPIRES system
assigns a unique proposal number to the proposal; this unique proposal
number will appear on the Proposal Cover Page. Access to the Web page
for a given NRA is identical to that for submission of an NOI (see
Section 3.1 above). A help desk is available by E-mail at
[nspires-help@nasaprs.com,]{.underline} or by calling Monday thru Friday
from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST at (202) 479-9376, for applicants who
may have difficulty with accessing or submitting to this site.

The address for the delivery of proposals, including a telephone number
point-of-contact for commercial delivery, is given in the Summary of
Solicitation of each NRA. A receipt that verifies that a proposal has
been received will be sent within two weeks of the proposal deadline.
Any submitters not receiving such notification in that timeframe should
immediately contact the help desk by E-mail at
[nspires-help@nasaprs.com]{.underline}, or by calling, Monday thru
Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST at (202) 479-9376,

as well as the NASA Program Officer identified in the NRA.

Note: The submission address specified in an NRA may be at one of the
NASA field Centers, a commercial support contractor, or a nonprofit
organization (whether funded primarily by NASA or otherwise). Regardless
of their nature, all receiving organizations are bound by the conditions
of their employment policies, service contracts, or agreements with NASA
to maintain strict confidentiality of the materials they handle.
Furthermore, they are bound to ensure that their employees who handle
proposals, or who in any way have access to information about or within
proposals, do not have conflicts of interest with any of the proposers
and are not in any way involved in proposing to the NRA themselves (see
also Appendix C for a further discussion of conflict of interest
issues).

3.4 [Timeline for Review and Selection]{.underline}

NASA currently is committed to meeting a standard of no more than 150
days from the Due Date for proposals to the announcement of selections,
and another 46 days after that announcement for the implementation of
the award itself. Therefore, a request for the commencement of funding
sooner than about 200 days after the Proposal Due Date is unlikely to be
accommodated, and a proposal submitted in response to an NRA that is
time-sensitive (e.g., to take advantage of a unique natural phenomena or
programmatic event) may be returned if, in the opinion of the cognizant
Program Officer, there is insufficient time for its review and
processing. Alternatively, time-sensitive proposals may be submitted as
unsolicited proposals when the NRA selection cycle does not accommodate
its unique circumstances. In such a case, however, the proposer is urged
to read and carefully follow the guidance for unsolicited proposals
given in Section 1.3 of this Guidebook.

3.5 [Proposal Withdrawal by Proposer or Return by NASA]{.underline}
\[Ref.: Appendix B, Part (h)\]

A proposal may be withdrawn by a written request signed by the proposer
at any time for any reason, including the circumstance in which another
organization has agreed to fund the proposal. Conversely, NASA reserves
the right to return a proposal without review should the proposal:

-   Be clearly non-responsive to the objectives and/or provisions of the
    NRA;

-   Not meet the requirements for proposal format, content, and
    organization as specified in this Guidebook and/or the NRA itself;

-   Fail to be delivered to the specified delivery address by the
    Proposal Due Date; and/or

-   Be submitted with insufficient lead time to review, select, fund,
    and carry out a time-sensitive proposed effort (see Section 3.4
    above).

**APPENDIX A**

**[GUIDE TO KEY DOCUMENTS ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB]{.underline}**

-   All parts of the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)
    Supplement (NFS) may be found through the index found at the World
    Wide Web (WWW) site
    <http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm>. Key
    parts of particular relevance to this Guidebook are:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \"Unsolicited proposals\" NFS 1815.6

-   \"Broad Agency Announcements\" NFS 1835.016

-   \"NASA Research Announcements\" NFS 1835.016-71

-   \"Instructions for Responding to NFS 1852.235-72 (reproduced as

> NASA Research Announcements\" Appendix B in this Guidebook)

-   The following items may be found through active links from the NASA
    homepage at [http://www.nasa.gov/](http://www.hq.nasa.gov/):

    -   The NASA Strategic Plan:
        <http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/1968main_strategi.pdf>

    -   Links to all NASA Headquarters Mission Directorates:
        <http://www.nasa.gov/centers/hq/organization>

    -   Links to all NASA Field Centers and the Jet Propulsion
        Laboratory: <http://www.hq.nasa.gov/hq/centers.html>

    -   The master list of all current Broad Agency Announcements:
        <http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nais/index.cgi>

    -   The \"Tasks Books\" for each HQ Program Office that lists all
        currently supported research awards, including the Principal
        Investigator (PI) name, PI organization, and title and summary
        of the investigation (Note: not all of the HQ program offices
        will have Task Books in place):
        <http://peer1.nasaprs.com/peer_review/index.cfm>

        -   The following document may be found at
            <http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/hq/library/unSol-Prop.html>:
            \"Guidance for the Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited
            Proposals\"

        -   The following document may be found at
            <http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/hq/grcover.htm>:

\"Grant And Cooperative Agreement Handbook," NPG 5800.1

-   The following items may be found at
    <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html>

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \"Cost Principles for Educational Institutions\" OMB Circular A-21

-   \"Uniform Administrative Requirements for OMB Circular A-110

Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher

Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations\"

-   \"Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations\" OMB Circular A-122

-   \"Audits of States, Local Government And Non-Profit OMB Circular
    A-133

Organizations"

**APPENDIX B**

#### INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS

NASA Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Supplement (NFS) Part
1852.235-72

(October 2002)

\(a\) **General.**

\(1\) Proposals received in response to a NASA Research Announcement
(NRA) will be used only for evaluation purposes. NASA does not allow a
proposal, the contents of which are not available without restriction
from another source, or any unique ideas submitted in response to an NRA
to be used as the basis of a solicitation or in negotiation with other
organizations, nor is a pre-award synopsis published for individual
proposals.

\(2\) A solicited proposal that results in a NASA award becomes part of
the record of that transaction and may be available to the public on
specific request; however, information or material that NASA and the
awardee mutually agree to be of a privileged nature will be held in
confidence to the extent permitted by law, including the Freedom of
Information Act.

\(3\) NRAs contain programmatic information and certain requirements
which apply only to proposals prepared in response to that particular
announcement. These instructions contain the general proposal
preparation information which applies to responses to all NRAs.

\(4\) A contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement may
be used to accomplish an effort funded in response to an NRA. NASA will
determine the appropriate award instrument. Contracts resulting from
NRAs are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the NASA FAR
Supplement. Any resultant grants or cooperative agreements will be
awarded and administered in accordance with the NASA Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Handbook (NPG 5800.1).

\(5\) NASA does not have mandatory forms or formats for responses to
NRAs; however, it is requested that proposals conform to the guidelines
in these instructions. NASA may accept proposals without discussion;
hence, proposals should initially be as complete as possible and be
submitted on the proposers\' most favorable terms.

\(6\) To be considered for award, a submission must, at a minimum,
present a specific project within the areas delineated by the NRA;
contain sufficient technical and cost information to permit a meaningful
evaluation; be signed by an official authorized to legally bind the
submitting organization; not merely offer to perform standard services
or to just provide computer facilities or services; and not
significantly duplicate a more specific current or pending NASA
solicitation.

\(b\) **NRA-Specific Items.** Several proposal submission items appear
in the NRA itself the unique NRA identifier; when to submit proposals;
where to send proposals; number of copies required; and sources for more
information. Items included in these instructions may be supplemented by
the NRA.

\(c\) The following information is needed to permit consideration in an
objective manner. NRAs will generally specify topics for which
additional information or greater detail is desirable. Each proposal
copy shall contain all submitted material, including a copy of the
transmittal letter if it contains substantive information.

\(1\) **Transmittal Letter or Prefatory** **Material.**

\(i\) The legal name and address of the organization and specific
division or cam­pus identification if part of a larger organi­zation;

\(ii\) A brief, scientifically valid project title intelligible to a
scientifically literate reader and suitable for use in the public press;

\(iii\) Type of organization: e.g., profit, nonprofit, educational,
small business, minority, women owned, etc.;

\(iv\) Name and telephone number of the principal investigator and
business personnel who may be contacted during evalua­tion or
negotiation;

\(v\) Identification of other organi­zations that are currently
evaluating a proposal for the same efforts;

\(vi\) Identification of the NRA, by number and title, to which the
proposal is responding;

> \(vii\) Dollar amount requested, desired starting date, and duration
> of project;
>
> \(viii\) Date of submission; and

\(ix\) Signature of a responsible official or authorized representative
of the organization, or any other person authorized to legally bind the
organization (unless the signature appears on the proposal itself).

\(2\) **Restriction on Use and Disclosure of** **Proposal Information.**
Information contained in proposals is used for evaluation purposes only.
Offerors or quoters should, in order to maximize protection of trade
secrets or other information that is confidential or privileged, place
the following notice on the title page of the proposal and specify the
information subject to the notice by inserting an appropriate
identification in the notice. In any event, information contained in
proposals will be protected to the extent permitted by law, but NASA
assumes no liability for use and disclosure of information not made
subject to the notice.

> **Notice**
>
> **Restriction on Use and Disclosure** **of Proposal Information**
>
> The information (data) contained in \[[insert page numbers or other
> identification]{.underline}\] of this proposal constitutes a trade
> secret and/or information that is commercial or financial and
> confidential or privileged. It is furnished to the Government in
> confi­dence with the understanding that it will not, without permission
> of the offeror, be used or disclosed other than for evaluation
> purposes; provided, however, that in the event a contract (or other
> agreement) is awarded on the basis of this proposal the Government
> shall have the right to use and disclose this information (data) to
> the ex­tent provided in the contract (or other agreement). This
> restriction does not limit the Government\'s right to use or disclose
> this information (data) if obtained from another source without
> restriction.

\(3\) **Abstract.** Include a concise (200-300 word if not otherwise
specified in the NRA) abstract describing the objective and the method
of approach.

> \(4\) **Project Description.**

\(i\) The main body of the proposal shall be a detailed statement of the
work to be undertaken and should include objectives and expected
significance; relation to the present state of knowledge; and relation
to previous work done on the project and to related work in progress
elsewhere. The statement should outline the plan of work, including the
broad design of experiments to be undertaken and a description of
experimental methods and procedures. The project description should
address the

evaluation factors in these instructions and any specific factors in the
NRA. Any substantial collaboration with individuals not referred to in
the budget or use of consultants should be described. Subcontracting
significant portions of a research project is discouraged.

\(ii\) When it is expected that the effort will require more than one
year, the proposal should cover the complete project to the extent that
it can be reasonably anticipated. Principal emphasis should be on the
first year of work, and the description should distinguish clearly
between the first year\'s work and work planned for subsequent years.

\(5\) **Management Approach.** For large or complex efforts involving
interactions among numerous individuals or other organizations, plans
for distribution of responsibilities and arrangements for ensuring a
coordinated effort should be described.

\(6\) **Personnel.** The principal investigator is responsible for
supervision of the work and participates in the conduct of the research
regardless of whether or not compensated under the award. A short
biographical sketch of the principal investigator, a list of principal
publications and any exceptional qualifications should be included. Omit
social security number and other personal items which do not merit
consideration in evaluation of the proposal. Give similar biographical
information on other senior professional personnel who will be directly
associated with the project. Give the names and titles of any other
scientists and technical personnel associated substantially with the
project in an advisory capacity. Universities should list the
approximate number of students or other assistants, together with
information as to their level of academic attainment. Any special
industry-university cooperative arrangements should be described.

> \(7\) **Facilities and Equipment.**

\(i\) Describe available facilities and major items of equipment
especially adapted or suited to the proposed project, and any additional
major equipment that will be required. Identify any Government-owned
facilities, industrial plant equipment, or special tooling that are
proposed for use. Include evidence of its availability and the cognizant
Government points of contact.

\(ii\) Before requesting a major item of capital equipment, the proposer
should determine if sharing or loan of equipment already within the
organization is a feasible alternative. Where such arrangements cannot
be made, the proposal should so state. The need for items that typically
can be used for research and non-research purposes should be explained.

> \(8\) **Proposed Costs (U. S. Proposals Only).**

\(i\) Proposals should contain cost and technical parts in one volume:
do not use separate \"confidential\" salary pages. As applicable,
include separate cost estimates for salaries and wages; fringe benefits;
equipment; expendable materials and supplies; services; domestic and
foreign travel; ADP expenses; publication or page charges; consultants;
subcontracts; other miscellaneous identifiable direct costs; and
indirect costs. List salaries and wages in appropriate organizational
categories (e.g., principal investigator, other scientific and
engineering professionals, graduate students, research assistants, and
technicians and other nonprofessional personnel). Estimate all staffing
data in terms of staff-months or fractions of full-time.

\(ii\) Explanatory notes should accompany the cost proposal to provide
identification and estimated cost of major capital equipment items to be
acquired; purpose and estimated number and lengths of trips planned;
basis for indirect cost computation (including date of most recent
negotiation and cognizant agency); and clarification of other items in
the cost proposal that are not self-evident. List estimated expenses as
yearly requirements by major work phases.

\(iii\) Allowable costs are governed by [FAR Part
31](http://www.arnet.gov/far/current/html/Subpart_31_1.html#1069490) and
the [NASA FAR Supplement Part
1831](http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/1831.htm) (and OMB
Circulars A21 for educational institutions and A-122 for nonprofit
organizations).

\(iv\) Use of NASA funds\--NASA funding may not be used for foreign
research efforts at any level, whether as a collaborator or a
subcontract. The direct purchase of supplies and/or services, which do
not constitute research, from non-U.S. sources by U.S. award recipients
is permitted. Additionally, in accordance with the National Space
Transportation Policy, use of a non-U.S. manufactured launch vehicle is
permitted only on a no-exchange-of-funds basis.

\(9\) **Security.** Proposals should not contain security classified
material. If the research requires access to or may generate security
classified information, the submitter will be required to comply with
Government security regulations.

\(10\) **Current Support.** For other current projects being conducted
by the principal investigator, provide title of project, sponsoring
agency, and ending date.

> \(11\) **Special Matters.**

\(i\) Include any required statements of environmental impact of the
research, human subject or animal care provisions, conflict of interest,
or on such other topics as may be required by the nature of the effort
and current statutes, executive orders, or other current Government-wide
guidelines.

\(ii\) Identify and discuss risk factors and issues throughout the
proposal where they are relevant, and your approach to managing these
risks.

\(iii\) Proposers should include a brief description of the
organization, its facilities, and previous work experience in the field
of the proposal. Identify the cognizant Government audit agency,
inspection agency, and administrative contracting officer, when
applicable.

\(d\) **Renewal Proposals.**

\(1\) Renewal proposals for existing awards will be considered in the
same manner as proposals for new endeavors. A renewal proposal should
not repeat all of the information that was in the original proposal. The
renewal proposal should refer to its predecessor, update the parts that
are no longer current, and indicate what elements of the research are
expected to be covered during the period for which support is desired. A
description of any significant findings since the most recent progress
report should be included. The renewal proposal should treat, in
reasonable detail, the plans for the next period, contain a cost
estimate, and otherwise adhere to these instructions.

\(2\) NASA may renew an effort either through amendment of an existing
contract or by a new award.

\(e\) **Length.** Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, effort should
be made to keep proposals as brief as possible, concentrating on
substantive material. Few proposals need exceed 15-20 pages. Necessary
detailed information, such as reprints, should be

included as attachments. A complete set of attach­ments is necessary for
each copy of the proposal. As proposals are not returned, avoid use of
\"one of a kind\" attachments.

\(f\) **Joint Proposals.**

\(1\) Where multiple organizations are involved, the proposal may be
submitted by only one of them. It should clearly describe the role to be
played by the other organizations and indicate the legal and managerial
arrangements contemplated. In other instances, simultaneous submission
of related proposals from each organization might be appropriate, in
which case parallel awards would be made.

\(2\) Where a project of a cooperative nature with NASA is contemplated,
describe the contributions expected from any participating NASA
investigator and agency facilities or equipment which may be required.
The proposal must be confined only to that which the proposing
organization can commit itself. \"Joint\" proposals which specify the
internal arrangements NASA will actually make are not acceptable as a
means of establishing an agency commitment.

\(g\) **Late Proposals.** Proposals or proposal modifications received
after the latest date specified for receipt may be considered if a
significant reduction in cost to the Government is probable or if there
are significant technical advantages, as compared with proposals
previously received.

\(h\) **Withdrawal.** Proposals may be withdrawn by the proposer at any
time before award. Offerors are requested to notify NASA if the proposal
is funded by another organization or of other changed circumstances
which dictate termination of evaluation.

\(i\) **Evaluation Factors.**

\(1\) Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, the principal elements (of
approximately equal weight) considered in evaluating a proposal are its
relevance to NASA\'s objectives, intrinsic merit, and cost.

\(2\) Evaluation of a proposal\'s relevance to NASA\'s objectives
includes the consideration of the potential contribution of the effort
to NASA\'s mission.

\(3\) Evaluation of its intrinsic merit includes the consideration of
the following factors of equal importance:

\(i\) Overall scientific or technical merit of the proposal or unique
and innovative methods, approaches, or concepts demon­strated by the
proposal.

\(ii\) Offeror\'s capabilities, related experience, facilities,
techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral factors
for achieving the proposal objectives.

\(iii\) The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed
principal investigator, team leader, or key personnel critical in
achieving the proposal objectives.

\(iv\) Overall standing among similar proposals and/or evaluation
against the state-of-the-art.

\(4\) Evaluation of the cost of a proposed effort may include the
realism and reasonableness of the proposed cost and available funds.

\(j\) **Evaluation Techniques.** Selection decisions will be made
following peer and/or scientific review of the proposals. Several
evaluation techniques are regularly used within NASA. In all cases
proposals are subject to scientific review by discipline specialists in
the area of the proposal. Some proposals are reviewed entirely in-house,
others are evaluated by a combination of in-house and selected external
reviewers, while yet others

are subject to the full external peer review tech­nique (with due regard
for conflict-of-interest and protection of proposal information), such
as by mail or through assembled panels. The final decisions are made by
a NASA selecting official. A proposal which is scientifically and
programmatically meritorious, but not selected for award during its
initial review, may be included in subsequent reviews unless the
proposer requests otherwise.

\(k\) **Selection for Award.**

\(1\) When a proposal is not selected for award, the proposer will be
notified. NASA will explain generally why the proposal was not selected.
Proposers desir­ing additional information may contact the selecting
official who will arrange a debriefing.

\(2\) When a proposal is selected for award, negotiation and award will
be handled by the procurement office in the funding installation. The
proposal is used as the basis for negotiation. The contracting officer
may request certain business data and may forward a model award
instrument and other information pertinent to negotiation.

\(l\) **Additional Guidelines Applicable to Foreign Proposals and
Proposals Including Foreign Participation.**

\(1\) NASA welcomes proposals from outside the U.S. However, foreign
entities are generally not eligible for funding from NASA. Therefore,
unless otherwise noted in the NRA, proposals from foreign entities
should not include a cost plan unless the proposal involves
collaboration with a U.S. institution, in which case a cost plan for
only the participation of the U.S. entity must be included. Proposals
from foreign entities and proposals from U.S. entities that include
foreign participation must be endorsed by the respective government
agency or funding/sponsoring in the country from which the foreign
entity is proposing. Such endorsement should indicate that the proposal
merits careful consideration by NASA, and if the proposal is selected,
sufficient funds will be made available to undertake the activity as
proposed.

\(2\) All foreign proposals must be typewritten in English and comply
with all other submission requirements stated in the NRA. All foreign
proposals will undergo the same evaluation and selection process as
those originating in the U.S. All proposals must be received before the
established closing date. Those received after the closing date will be
treated in accordance with paragraph (g) of this provision. Sponsoring
foreign government agencies or funding institutions may, in exceptional
situations, forward a proposal without endorsement if endorsement is not
possible before the announced closing date. In such cases, the NASA
sponsoring office should be advised when a decision on endorsement can
be expected.

\(3\) Successful and unsuccessful foreign entities will be contacted
directly by the NASA sponsoring office. Copies of these letters will be
sent to the foreign sponsor. Should a foreign proposal or a U.S.
proposal with foreign participation be selected, NASA\'s Office of
External Relations will arrange with the foreign sponsor for the
proposed participation on a no-exchange-of-funds basis, in which NASA
and the non-U.S. sponsoring agency or funding institution will each bear
the cost of discharging their respective responsibilities.

\(4\) Depending on the nature and extent of the proposed cooperation,
these arrangements may entail:

> \(i\) An exchange of letters between NASA and the foreign sponsor**;**
> or
>
> \(ii\) A formal Agency-to-Agency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

\(m\) **Cancellation of NRA.** NASA reserves the right to make no awards
under this NRA and to cancel this NRA. NASA assumes no liability for
canceling the NRA or for anyone\'s failure to receive actual notice of
cancellation.

**(End of provision)**

**APPENDIX C**

**[PROPOSAL PROCESSING, REVIEW, AND SELECTION]{.underline}**

C.1 [Overview]{.underline}

NASA takes seriously its responsibility for ensuring that proposals are
treated with the utmost confidentiality and are evaluated fairly and
objectively without conflict of interest on the part of the reviewers.
Therefore, regardless of the mailing address to which an NRA may direct
proposals to be sent, it is NASA policy that [NASA Civil Service
personnel will be in charge of and direct all aspects of the review and
selection processes]{.underline}, including the identification and
invitation of peer review personnel, in-person monitoring of the
deliberations of any peer review panel, and the adjudication of
conflicts of interest that may be declared by panel personnel. Also, all
non-Government reviewers are prohibited from making unauthorized
disclosure of proposal information and evaluation materials and/or
information (see the sample Nondisclosure Agreement in Section E.2,
Appendix E), whereas Government employees who may be involved in the
peer review process are bound by the proscriptions of Civil Service
employment not to divulge confidential aspects of their duties.

Although proposers are provided with explanations for the final
decisions regarding their proposals, it is NASA policy not to release
the identities of the reviewers themselves nor the details of panel
deliberations that culminate in the final assessments of the proposals.
NASA depends upon the scientific community involved as peer reviewers to
acknowledge conflicts of interest when they exist, to maintain
confidentiality of the proceedings and results both during and after a
review process, and to provide the fairest and most competent peer
review possible.

An overview of the process from proposal submission through selection is
as follows:

-   At the time of the electronic submission of its *Proposal Cover
    Page* by the proposer, each proposal is given a unique
    identification code that is maintained throughout the entire
    process, and a log of all proposals received is provided to the
    cognizant NASA Program Officer within three working days if number
    of proposals received is less than 250; within five working days if
    number of proposals received is more than 250.

-   The Program Officer selects panel and/or mail reviewers based on
    their known expertise relevant to the content of each proposal and
    avoidance of conflicts of interest, and requests their reviews based
    on the evaluation criteria established in the NRA (see also next
    section below).

-   Whether by mail or as a member of a panel, NASA instructs all
    reviewers to base their comments on the specified evaluation
    criteria, to maintain confidentiality of their activities and of all
    proposal and review materials provided to them, to avoid any
    activities that may knowingly lead to conflicts of interest, and to
    report any conflicts as may become known to them during the course
    of the review activities. To this end, all reviewers not employed by
    the U.S. Government must submit a signed *Nondisclosure Agreement*
    before they are allowed to review any proposals (see Section E.2 in
    Appendix E in this Guidebook).

-   The scientific and technical merits of each proposal are determined
    by the peer reviewers while meeting as a panel monitored by the
    cognizant NASA Program Officer or another NASA Headquarters employee
    (including those who may be serving under auspices of an
    Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) appointment). The peer
    reviewers may also be asked to comment on the perceived programmatic
    relevancy and cost reasonableness of the proposals.

-   A recommendation for selection or nonselection of each proposal is
    developed by the cognizant Program Officer and presented to the
    Selecting Official (as identified in the NRA) based on the quality
    of its science/technical peer review, any program-unique criteria
    (e.g., program balance) stated in the NRA, its relevance to the
    research objectives stated in the NRA and to NASA\'s strategic goals
    in general, its comparison to competing proposals of equal merits
    and objectives, and the available budget resources. Selections are
    then made by the NASA Selecting Official.

-   After selection, each proposer is notified by letter or electronic
    mail of the disposition of his/her proposal. Sometimes this
    communication may also transmit an anonymous copy of the proposal's
    peer review. In any case, the proposer may request a debriefing from
    NASA, identifying strengths and weaknesses. NASA will decide whether
    this debriefing will be accomplished by sending the peer reviews by
    mail to the proposer or by oral communication.

-   NASA also notifies Members of Congress of awards to any of their
    constituents. Following notification of proposers and of Congress, a
    list of selected proposals is posted at
    <http://nspires.nasaprs.com/>. In addition to the proposal title,
    PI, and proposing organization, the abstract may also be posted.
    (Ref. NASA FAR Supplement 1805.3\--)

-   Official notification of selection for the solicitation is then
    forwarded by the Program Officer to a NASA Award Office that will
    contact the proposing organization to negotiate funding through an
    appropriate award instrument (see further in Appendix D in this
    Guidebook).

C.2 [Evaluation Criteria]{.underline} \[Ref.: Appendix B, Part (i)\]

The evaluation criteria in Appendix B, Part (i), of this Guidebook, as
amended below by the words in italics, will apply to all NRAs released
by NASA, unless otherwise stated in the individual NRA:

> \"(i). Evaluation Factors.
>
> \"(1) Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, the principal elements
> (of approximately equal weight) considered in evaluating a proposal
> are its intrinsic merit, its relevance to NASA\'s objectives, and its
> cost. *The failure of a proposal to be rated highly in any one of
> these elements is sufficient cause for the proposal to not be
> selected*.
>
> \"(2) Evaluation of a proposal\'s relevance to NASA\'s objectives
> includes the consideration of the potential contribution of the effort
> to NASA\'s mission *as expressed in its most recent NASA strategy
> documents and the specific objectives and goals given in the
> solicitation to which the proposal is submitted*.
>
> \"(3) Evaluation of intrinsic merit includes consideration of the
> following factors:
>
> \(i\) Overall scientific or technical merit of the proposal and/or
> unique
>
> and innovative methods, approaches, concepts, or advanced technologies
> demonstrated by the proposal;
>
> \(ii\) Offeror\'s capabilities, related experience, facilities,
> techniques, or
>
> unique combination of these which are integral factors for achieving
>
> the proposal\'s objectives;
>
> \(iii\) The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the
> proposed
>
> principal investigator, team leader, or key personnel critical in
> achieving the proposal objectives; and
>
> \(iv\) Overall standing among similar proposals and/or evaluation
> against the state-of-the-art.

\"(4) Evaluation of the cost of a proposed effort shall include the
realism and reasonableness of the proposed cost, and *the comparison of
that proposed cost to* available funds. *Low cost, while desirable, does
not offset the importance of realism and reasonableness of the proposed
budget*.\"

Note that the NRA itself provides the focused, program-specific
objectives that will define precisely what is meant by the term
"relevance" in items (1) and (2) above. The evaluation forms that are
provided to both mail and panel reviewers, will generally list (perhaps
in abbreviated form) all criteria for which their opinion is requested.
Reviewers are instructed to judge each proposal against the stated
evaluation criteria and [not]{.underline} to compare proposals to which
they have access, even if they propose similar objectives. Only the NASA
Program Officer may make binding comparisons of proposals during the
process of developing the recommendation for selection.

C.3 [Evaluation Processes]{.underline} \[Ref.: Appendix B, Part (j)\]

As a matter of both policy and practice, proposals submitted to NASA are
almost always reviewed by panels composed of the proposer\'s
professional peers who have been screened for conflicts of interest. In
addition, panel reviews may be augmented by one or more reviews
solicited by mail by the Program Officer that are made available to the
panel reviewers once they convene. In some circumstances, NASA may elect
to evaluate proposals using only mail reviews. As a general rule, and as
based on its deliberations, a peer panel is authorized to wholly or
partially accept or reject any such mail reviews. Typically each member
of the panel is provided with only a few of the proposals for which
he/she is specifically tasked to read and report in detail during the
plenary meeting of the group. There are almost always at least two such
readers of each proposal. In all cases, however, copies of every
proposal are available for inspection by the members of the panel while
it is in session. The final consensus evaluation determined by the panel
is reviewed and approved for completeness and clarity by the attending
NASA Program Officer and, if appropriate, the chairperson of the panel.

The number and significance of strengths and weaknesses for a proposal
determines its final summary evaluation based on the following
adjectival scale (see also Prototype Proposal Evaluation Form in Section
E.3 in Appendix E of this Guidebook):

+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Summary** | **Basis for**               | **Relationship of**      |
|             |                             |                          |
| **E         | **Summary Evaluation**      | **Summary Evaluation     |
| valuation** |                             | to**                     |
|             |                             |                          |
|             |                             | **Potential for          |
|             |                             | Selection**              |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| [           | A thorough, and compelling  | Top priority for         |
| Excellent]{ | proposal of exceptional     | selection in the absence |
| .underline} | merit that fully responds   | of any issues of funding |
|             | to the objectives of the    | availability or          |
|             | NRA as documented by        | programmatic priorities. |
|             | numerous or significant     |                          |
|             | strengths and with no major |                          |
|             | weaknesses.                 |                          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| [Very       | A competent proposal of     | Second priority for      |
| Good]{      | high merit that fully       | selection in the absence |
| .underline} | responds to the objectives  | of any issues of funding |
|             | of the NRA, whose strengths | availability or          |
|             | fully out-balance any       | programmatic priorities. |
|             | weaknesses and none of      |                          |
|             | whose weaknesses are        |                          |
|             | considered major.           |                          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| [Good]{     | A competent proposal that   | May be selected as funds |
| .underline} | represents a credible       | permit based on          |
|             | response to the NRA, whose  | programmatic priorities. |
|             | strengths and weaknesses    |                          |
|             | essentially balance each    |                          |
|             | other.                      |                          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| [Fair]{     | A proposal that provides a  | Not selectable           |
| .underline} | nominal response to the NRA | regardless of the        |
|             | but whose weaknesses        | availability of funds or |
|             | outweigh any strengths.     | programmatic priorities. |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| [Poor]{     | A seriously flawed proposal | Not selectable           |
| .underline} | having one or more major    | regardless of the        |
|             | weaknesses that constitute  | availability of funds or |
|             | fatal flaws.                | programmatic priorities. |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+

Review panels are instructed [not]{.underline} to compare proposals to
each other but to base all evaluation comments against the criteria and
objectives as stated in the NRA. To help ensure uniformity of the
reviews, NASA asks its reviewers to document their findings using clear,
cogent language that is understandable to the nonspecialist by means of
perceived major and minor strengths and weaknesses (see Section E.3 in
Appendix E below), where it is understood that a minor weakness is
correctable if addressed early in the period of performance but that a
major weakness is considered a serious if not fatal flaw or deficiency
that may render the proposal unsuitable for consideration for funding
(e.g., the proposal fails to address the NRAs objectives, does not show
promise of making a significant advance in its field, or is
unjustifiably too costly compared to the available resources).

For NASA's purposes of easily ranking the proposals in the order of
their summary assessments, these adjectival ratings are commonly
converted into a numerical scale from 5 for Excellent to 1 for Poor.
Peer panels frequently choose to designate a score between two of these
ratings; for example, a rating midway between Excellent and Very Good is
designated as "E/VG \~ 4.5." However, panels are discouraged from
attempting to assign ratings to any finer levels of discrimination since
such precision generally cannot be substantiated or defended. Likewise,
NASA Program Officers and Selecting Officials typically consider
proposals ranked within one-tenth of a point to be essentially co-equal
and, therefore, invoke other factors to discriminate among them, e.g.,
relevance to NASA's objectives and interests, the balance of the
research objectives addressed by other tasks within the program, and
costs.

Note that on occasion a proposal may include some aspect(s) that is(are)
considered undesirable or unnecessary (e.g., the development of
hardware, the pursuit of a certain research objectives, plans for
excessive travel, or the support of certain personnel). In such a case,
and at the option of the cognizant NASA Program Officer, a proposal may
be evaluated more than once: first as originally proposed, and then
again as "descoped" of one or more of its original provisions. In such a
case, the rating of the descoped proposal may justify its consideration
for funding consistent with the policy for Partial Selections discussed
in Section C.5.2 below.

C.4 [Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality]{.underline}

> \[Ref.: Appendix B, Parts (a)(1), (a)(2), and (c)(2)\]

The issues of conflict of interest and confidentiality are of critical
importance to the peer review process. All reviewers of NASA proposals
are directed to avoid not only actual but also any apparent conflicts of
interest and to maintain confidentiality about all activities involved
in the review process. In a worst case, a selection process could be
nullified by the *post facto* disclosure of a conflict of interest or
breech in confidentiality. Reviewers are personally responsible for
identifying and calling to the attention of the cognizant NASA Program
Officer any conflicts of interest situations, as well as maintaining
confidentiality regarding each proposal that they handle or to which
they may be exposed during the course of the review process. Regardless
of whether the review process is by mail or by a convened panel, the
presiding NASA Program Officer addresses and adjudicates conflicts of
interest based on the following general guidelines:

-   Every reviewer agrees to avoid conflicts of interest and to maintain
    the confidentiality of his/her participation in and the results of
    the review process by signing a Nondisclosure Agreement in advance
    of being sent any proposals (a generic version of this Agreement is
    given in Section E.2, Appendix E; note that reviewers who are U.S.
    Government employees do not have to sign such a form since their
    conduct is covered by the Ethics in Government Act). By signing a
    Nondisclosure Agreement, a reviewer agrees to abide by its
    guidelines for conflict of interest and confidentiality. Should an
    unanticipated conflict arise or otherwise become known during the
    course of examining the proposal under review, the reviewer is
    obligated to inform the cognizant NASA Program Officer and cease
    participation pending a NASA decision on the issue.

-   NASA makes every effort to never allow a reviewer to see a proposal
    with which a conflict of interest is known to exist. Should that
    circumstance inadvertently happen, the reviewer is instructed to
    immediately return the proposal and is disqualified from
    participation in any way in its review. Occasionally, NASA must ask
    personnel to participate on a panel that will consider one or more
    proposals for which a reviewer does have acknowledged conflicts of
    interest. In cases like this, the reviewer is excused from the panel
    during all deliberations of those proposals, and in some cases may
    also be excused from the deliberation of any other proposals that
    are judged to be in direct programmatic competition with the
    conflicted proposals.

-   Disclosure by a reviewer of either the proposals themselves and
    their evaluation materials and discussions is never condoned by NASA
    under any circumstances at any time, even after the selections are
    announced. Since the review process is not complete until the
    selections are announced, a breech of confidentiality of the review
    process could result in the entire selection process for an NRA
    being declared invalid. Just as serious, but on a more personal
    basis, unauthorized disclosure of privileged review information may
    lead to the proposer and/or his/her proposing colleagues to make
    critical career decisions based on erroneous, preselection hearsay
    information.

C.5 [Selection Procedures]{.underline}

C.5.1 Overview \[Ref.: Appendix B, Parts (j) & (k)\]

After all reviews and evaluations are completed, the Program Officer for
the NRA develops a recommendation for selection based on the results of
each proposal\'s intrinsic merit, its overall relevance to the program
objectives as stated in the NRA (including programmatic factors such as
balance between objectives or disciplines), and the realism and
reasonableness of the proposed costs as compared to the available
budget. The Program Officer then presents and defends this
recommendation before the NASA Selecting Official identified in the NRA,
who then selects the proposals to be funded. The general relationship of
the Summary Evaluation rating to the potential for selection is given in
the in table in Section C.3 above. In this regard, note that owing to
the shortage of budget resources and/or issues of programmatic balance,
proposals of nominally high intrinsic merits may have to be declined.

As soon as possible after the selection is concluded, the Selecting
Official or Program Officer informs each proposer of the selection or
declination of his/her proposal by postal letter or electronic mail and
offers a debriefing. However, such correspondence does not constitute an
award to the selected proposer nor a commitment to transmit funds (see
Appendix D in this Guidebook for further information about NASA's
procedures for management of selected proposals).

C.5.2 Partial Selections \[Ref.: Appendix B, Part (k)\]

Part (k) of Appendix B of this Guidebook , is augmented by inclusion of
Paragraph (3) as follows:

> *\"(3) NASA may elect to offer selection of only a portion of a
> proposed investigation, usually at a level of support reduced from
> that requested in the original proposal. In such a case, the proposer
> will be given the opportunity to accept or decline selection based on
> the reduced effort and/or budget. If the proposer accepts such an
> offer, a revised budget and statement of work may be required before
> funding action on the proposal can be initiated. If the proposer
> declines the offer of a partial selection, the offer of selection may
> be withdrawn in its entirety by NASA*.\"

See also the concluding material in Section C.3 above.

Should NASA offer to select such a descoped proposal, it is generally
done so for a lesser amount of support than that requested in the
original proposal budget. Should this reduction be greater than 20
percent of that originally proposed, a revised budget and statement of
work will have to be submitted by the proposer.

C.5.3 Disclosure of Selections and Nonselections

For selected proposals, NASA considers the Proposal Title, the Principal
Investigator\'s name and organization, and the Proposal Summary to be in
the public domain and will post that information on an appropriate
publicly accessible location. Therefore, prospective proposers should
refer to Section 2.3.1 in this Guidebook as well as Appendix B, Part
(a)(2) for guidance on the preparation of their Proposal Summaries in
anticipation of public disclosure. If a proposal is partially selected
by NASA, the proposer will be given the opportunity prior to public
disclosure to modify the Proposal Summary so that it correctly describes
the funded research. Selected proposers are free, but not required by
NASA, to release any additional information about their proposals that
they may choose. However, NASA considers other portions of proposals to
be proprietary and, therefore, does not release these sections of
successful proposals to the public without prior consultation with the
proposer.

It is NASA policy not to release any information about any of the
nonselected proposals.

C.6 [Debriefing of Proposers]{.underline}

A proposer has the right to be informed of the major factor(s) that led
to the acceptance or rejection of his/her proposal. At the discretion of
the NASA Program Officer, such debriefings may be entirely oral (usually
by telephone) or entirely in writing, or a combination of the two. A
proposer may request an in-person debriefing at NASA Headquarters, but
NASA funds cannot be used to defray travel costs. Again it is emphasized
that nonselected proposers should be aware that proposals of nominally
high intrinsic and programmatic merits may be declined for reasons
entirely unrelated to any scientific or technical weaknesses *per se*
(see Section C.5.1 in this Appendix).

The nonselection of a proposal does not restrict the submission of a
similar or even the same effort by the proposer(s) in response to
appropriate future NASA solicitations or to other appropriate funding
agencies or organizations. However, if a proposal to NASA is
contemplated, proposers are strongly urged to carefully consider the
entirety of comments offered during their debriefing, as well as the
proposal guidelines given in Section 1.7 of this Guidebook, before
making the decision to resubmit the same, or nearly the same, proposal.
Merely correcting any perceived deficiencies in a proposal as noted by a
review process for one NRA in no way guarantees a higher rating in
another solicitation.

**APPENDIX D**

**[PROPOSAL AWARDS AND CONTINUED SUPPORT]{.underline}**

D.1 [New Awards]{.underline}

D.1.1 Awards to NASA Centers

A selected proposal submitted from a NASA Center, as well as from the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, is funded directly by NASA Headquarters
through the Agency's funding mechanism called a Research and Technology
Operating Plan (RTOP).

D.1.2 Awards to Non-NASA Organizations

A NASA award is signed only by a NASA Grant or Contracting Officer
(called an \"Award Officer\" for the purposes of this Guidebook) and is
addressed to the proposing organization. Only an appointed NASA Award
Officer can make commitments, obligations, or awards on behalf of the
Agency and authorize the expenditure of funds. As a professional
courtesy, this award will be preceded by notification by electronic mail
or postal mail from the NASA Program Officer to the Principal
Investigator. It is important to note that no commitment on the part of
NASA or the Government is legally binding, even if in writing by way of
a letter of selection, from anyone other than a certified NASA Award
Officer.

NASA chooses the funding vehicle best suited for the project and the
proposing organization, which can be a grant, a contract, an interagency
agreement, or a cooperative agreement as defined further below. It is
for the purpose of aiding NASA in choosing the appropriate
post-selection award and reporting requirements that the Proposal Cover
Page format (see Section 2.3.2 in this Guidebook) asks the proposer to
designate his/her type of organization according to the definitions
given in Section 1.4.1 of this Guidebook (see also Appendix B, Part
(c)(1)(iii)) of this Guidebook, as well as the *NASA Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Handbook* referenced in Appendix A). Regardless of
the type of award, selected investigators are urged to work with their
own organization\'s grants/contracts office (sometimes called the Office
of Sponsored Research) to understand which funding vehicle is being used
as the source of support for their award, since the reporting
requirements and deadlines vary with the type of funding mechanism.

-   [Grant]{.underline} -- A funding instrument used by the Government
    to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized
    by Federal statute. The objective of a grant is the general
    enhancement of the field of scientific and technical programs of
    interest to NASA. The recipient of the grant is an organization, not
    the Principal Investigator (PI), although the PI is responsible for
    conduct of the project. No substantial technical involvement is
    expected between NASA and the recipient, nor does the Government
    direct the research by the PI. A grant is usually funded on a yearly
    basis, and the products expected from a grantee are Annual Progress
    Reports and a Final Progress Report. Grants with nonprofit
    organizations are managed by a NASA Grant Officer following the
    policies set forth in the *Grant And Cooperative Agreement Handbook*
    (see Appendix A for access information).

    -   [Contract]{.underline} -- A mutually binding legal commitment
        between the Government and a contractor whose principal purpose
        is the acquisition by purchase, lease, or barter of property or
        services from the contractor for the direct benefit to or use by
        the Government. The Principal Investigator is responsible for
        scientific conduct of the project. In general, contracts are
        negotiated and have deliverable products, i.e., the Government
        \"purchases\" a product that, in the case of an NRA, is a study
        in a specified area of basic research. Normally, for proposals
        selected through an NRA, no fee or profit is paid under cost
        contracts with educational organizations or nonprofit
        organizations, as well as cost-sharing contracts with any type
        of entity. Non cost-sharing contracts with commercial
        organizations are fee bearing. Contracts typically carry a
        variety of reporting requirements that will be specified in
        their terms. Contracts with either nonprofit or for profit
        organizations are managed by a NASA Contracting Officer
        following the policies in the FAR and NFS (see Appendix A for
        access information).

    -   [Interagency Agreement]{.underline} -- A transaction by which
        one U.S. Government agency (the requesting agency) obtains
        needed supplies or services from another U.S. Government agency
        (the servicing agency). Such agreements are negotiated by direct
        contact between NASA administrative personnel and those of the
        other agency and may involve either the direct or reimbursable
        transfer of funds from the requesting agency to the servicing
        agency. Interagency agreements for the transfer of Federal funds
        are arranged by NASA management following currently applicable
        policies and procedures.

    -   [Cooperative Agreement]{.underline} -- An agreement similar to a
        grant with the exception that NASA and the recipient are each
        expected to have substantial technical interaction for the
        performance of the project. A cooperative agreement is usually
        funded on a yearly basis. The only products expected to NASA are
        Annual Progress Reports and a Final Progress Report. Cooperative
        agreements with nonprofit organizations are managed by a NASA
        Grant Officer, while cooperative agreements with for profit
        entities may be managed by a Contracting Officer or a Grant
        Officer. In any case, cooperative agreements are managed
        pursuant to the policies set forth in the *Grant And Cooperative
        Agreement Handbook* (see Appendix A for access information).

For all of these types of awards, NASA agrees to provide a specific
level of support for a specified period of time. Owing to the intrinsic
yearly nature of the Federal budget process, funding is usually only
provided in increments of one year at a time, although there can be
exceptions to this rule. If the award funding is to be provided on an
annual basis, the recipient receives an award supplement for the
successive period provided that funds are available and that the results
reported through their Yearly Progress Reports indicate that further
support is warranted (Note: funding supplements are sometimes called
\"renewals\"; see also Section D.4 below in this Appendix). NASA
occasionally sponsors programs that fund selected tasks for up to five
years, although in such cases the selected tasks are subject to full
peer evaluation after the first three years in order to qualify for
continued funding.

The award period begins on the effective date specified in the award
document and ends on the indicated expiration date. For a grant or
cooperative agreement, expenses incurred within the 90-day period
preceding the effective date of the award may be authorized by the
recipient organization, but such expenses are made at the recipient\'s
risk. Expenses after the scheduled expiration date of the award may be
made only to honor documented commitments made on or before the
expiration date.

D.2 [Requests for Augmentation Funding]{.underline}

Occasionally a selected investigation may have a valid need for
additional funding due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., the failure of
a critical piece of equipment, or unanticipated increase in costs of an
approved item or labor rates). In such cases, the proposer may request
an augmentation to the award by submitting a letter proposal to the
cognizant Program Officer, with a copy to the Award Officer, that
describes why the increase is needed, the impact to the selected
investigation if the augmentation is not approved, and a budget for the
augmentation signed by an authorized representative of the proposing
organization. The Program Officer will review such requests as soon as
possible and make a recommendation to the NASA Procurement Officer for
funding or not. If the decision is favorable, the recipient must have
written approval from a NASA Award Officer for an increase to his/her
approved budget before incurring expenses beyond the authorized award.
In any case, such requests for additional funding should be made only
for the most extreme and demanding of circumstances since NASA funding
reserves are always extremely limited. Note that a request for an
augmentation for an award during a no cost extension (see section D.3
below) is not allowed.

The procedures described above apply only to grants and cooperative
agreements with nonprofit organizations. Cost growth on a cooperative
agreement with a for profit organization is the responsibility of the
recipient. Finally, any increase in scope on a contract is a subject to
negotiation and prior approval of the Contracting Officer.

D.3 [No Cost Extensions]{.underline}

A no cost extension of an award can be requested when a Principal
Investigator for a selected investigation realizes that he/she cannot
complete the objectives of the proposed project before the specified
expiration date of the award. In such cases, the following policies
apply:

-   In most cases of a grant or a cooperative agreement with a nonprofit
    entity, the recipient organization may unilaterally initiate a
    one-time no cost extension of the award\'s expiration date for up to
    12 months by notifying the NASA Procurement Officer in writing of
    the revised date and the justification for the extension before the
    end of the period of performance. A copy of this request should also
    be sent to the Program Officer. NASA has the right to deny the
    extension if it is determined that it is merely for the purpose of
    using unobligated funds, if the extension may require additional
    funds, or if the extension involves any change in the approved
    objectives or scope of the project. See Provisions 1260.23, and
    1274.909 of the *Grants and Cooperative Agreements Handbook* (see
    Appendix A for Web site) for further details.

-   In the case of a cooperative agreement with a commercial firm, the
    parties may extend the expiration date if additional time is
    required to complete the milestones at no increase in Government
    resources. Requests for approval for no-cost extensions must be
    forwarded to the NASA Agreement Officer no later than ten days prior
    to the expiration of the award to be considered.

-   In the case of a contract, NASA authorizes a no cost extension based
    on a written request by the recipient organization to their NASA
    Award Officer in sufficient time to receive approval. Investigators
    may not make new commitments or incur new expenditures after the
    established expiration date until an extension is formally granted.

D.4 [Funding Continuation (\"Renewals\") of Multiple Year
Awards]{.underline}

It is NASA\'s usual policy to award multiple year awards. If the
decision to provide multiple year funding to a research proposal is made
through a grant or cooperative agreement, the special condition at
1260.52 of the *Grants and Cooperative Agreement Handbook*, entitled
"Multiple Year Grant or Cooperative Agreement," will be included in the
award. Periods approved under the Multiple Year Grant or Cooperative
Agreement special condition at 1260.52 and funded at the levels
specified in the special condition are not considered to be new awards.
Therefore, new proposals, new proposal-related certifications (such as
given in Appendix E of this Guidebook), new technical evaluations, and
new budget proposals are not required as long as this information for
the multiple year period was reviewed and approved as part of the
original proposal. An Annual Progress Report is due 60 days prior to the
anniversary date of every grant and cooperative agreement except for the
final year when a final report, called a Summary of Research, is due
within 90 days of the expiration date of the award; see Provisions
1260.22 and 1260.151(d) in the *Grants and Cooperative Agreement
Handbook*.

The funding levels for multiple year awards is fixed at the time that
the award is made by a NASA Procurement Officer. However, a revised
budget for the next year of a multiple year award will be required (i)
if the anticipated expenditures are greater than that stated in the
award, (ii) if the research has appreciably changed in scope, or (iii)
if changes have been made to the planned purchases of equipment.
Requests for augmentations for work that is beyond the scope of the
originally approved proposal may require technical evaluations by NASA.

Nevertheless, NASA reserves the right, with consent from the recipient,
to terminate any multiple year grant and or cooperative agreement
whenever one of the three conditions cited in Paragraph 1260.52 occurs.

D.5 [Completing an Award]{.underline}

At the completion of a grant or cooperative agreement, certain reports
are required by NASA and will be specified in the award document.
Exhibits G and H to the *Grants and Cooperative Agreement Handbook* list
the required reports. For a research grant, one of the most common award
types, the following final reports are generally required:

-   Final Federal Cash Transaction Report (SF 272)

-   Summary of Research

-   Subject Inventions Final Report

-   Final Inventory Report of Federally-Owned Property

**APPENDIX E**

**[CERTIFICATIONS, SAMPLE AGREEMENTS, AND FORMS]{.underline}**

E.1 [Certifications and Assurances]{.underline}

E.1.1 Certification of Compliance on *Proposal Cover Page*

There are currently two formal Certifications and one formal Assurance
required as part of a proposal submitted in response to a NASA research
solicitation. The Certifications and Assurance are stated in Sections
E.1.2 through E.1.4 below and apply to all organizations except U.S.
Federal Institutions. In order to reduce paper work required by the
submitting organizations, the "Certification of Compliance...",
reproduced directly below, is now included at the top of the printout of
the *Proposal Cover Page*. This certification affirms that these
requirements are met by the proposing organization once the printed
version of the *Cover Page* is signed by the Authorizing Official of the
proposing organization (or by the individual proposer if there is no
proposing organization) and submitted with the proposal. Therefore, the
Certifications and Assurance reproduced in sections E.1.2 through E.1.4
are included only for reference and information; [they should not be
submitted with the proposal]{.underline}.

> [Certification of Compliance with Applicable Executive Orders and U.S.
> Code]{.underline}
>
> By submitting the proposal identified in the Cover Sheet/Proposal
> Summary in response to this Research Announcement, the Authorizing
> Official of the proposing organization (or the individual proposer if
> there is no proposing organization) as identified below:
>
> • certifies that the statements made in this proposal are true and
> complete to the best of his/her knowledge;
>
> • agrees to accept the obligations to comply with NASA award terms and
> conditions if an award is made as a result of this proposal; and
>
> • confirms compliance with all provisions, rules, and stipulations set
> forth in the two Certifications and one Assurance contained in this
> NRA (namely, (i) the Assurance of Compliance with the NASA Regulations
> Pursuant to Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, and (ii)
> Certifications, Disclosures, and Assurances Regarding Lobbying and
> Debarment & Suspension.
>
> Willful provision of false information in this proposal and/or its
> supporting documents, or in reports required under an ensuing award,
> is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).

In addition, proposers should be aware that NRAs released by some NASA
program offices will require additional, specialized certifications
(e.g., concerning the impact of proposed research that includes
environmental, human, or animal care provisions, or other topics
required by statute, Executive Order, or Government policies) that will
need to be individually reproduced from the NRA, signed, and submitted
with a proposal. If such cases, the certifications will be provided in
the individual NRAs.

E.1.2 Assurance of Compliance with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Regulations Pursuant to Nondiscrimination in Federally
Assisted Programs

> "The Organization, corporation, firm, or other organization on whose
> behalf this assurance is signed, hereinafter called \"Applicant\"
>
> "HEREBY AGREES THAT it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights
> Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352), Title IX of the Education Amendments of
> 1972 (20U.S.C. 1680 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
> 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and the Age Discrimination Act of
> 1975 (42 U.S.C. 16101 et seq.) and all requirements imposed by or
> pursuant to the Regulation of the National Aeronautics and Space
> Administration (14 CFR Part 1250)(hereinafter called \"NASA\") issued
> pursuant to these laws, to the end that in accordance with these laws
> and regulations, no person in the United States shall, on the basis of
> race, color, national origin, sex, handicapped condition, or age be
> excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
> otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
> for which the Applicant receives federal financial assistance from
> NASA; and HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT it will immediately take any
> measure necessary to effectuate this agreement.
>
> "If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved
> with the aid of federal financial assistance extended to the Applicant
> by NASA, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant, or in the case
> of any transfer of which federal financial assistance is extended or
> for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or
> benefits. If any personal property is so provided, this assurance
> shall obligate the Applicant for the period during which it retains
> ownership or possession of the property. In all other cases, this
> assurance shall obligate the Applicant for the period during which the
> federal financial assistance is extended to it by NASA.
>
> "THIS ASSURANCE is given in consideration of and for the purpose of
> obtaining any and all federal grants, loans, contract, property,
> discounts or other federal financial assistance extended after the
> date hereof to the Applicant by NASA, including installation payments
> after such date on account of applications for federal financial
> assistance which were approved before such date. The Applicant
> recognizes and agrees that such federal financial assistance will be
> extended in reliance on the representations and agreements made in
> this assurance, and that the United States shall have the right to
> seek judicial enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is binding
> on the Applicant, its successors, transferees, and assignees, and the
> person or persons whose signatures appear below are authorized to sign
> on behalf of the Applicant."
>
> E.1.3 Certification Regarding Lobbying
>
> "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 any 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.
>
> "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.
>
> "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."

E.1.4 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other
Responsibility Matters

> "This certification is required by the regulations implementing
> Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, 14 CFR, Part 1265,
> Participant\'s responsibilities, published as Part VII of the May 26,
> 1988, *Federal Register* (pages 19160-19211).
>
> "(1) The prospective primary participant certifies to the best of its
> knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
>
> -- Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment,
> declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions
> by any Federal department or agency;
>
> -- Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been
> convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for
> commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with
> obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal,
> State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction;
> violation of Federal or State antitrust statues or commission of
> embezzlement theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of
> records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
>
> -- Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly
> charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or local) with
> commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of
> this certification; and
>
> -- Have not within three-year period preceding this
> application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal,
> State, or local) terminated for cause or default.
>
> "(2) Where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to
> any of the statements in this certification, such prospective
> participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal."

E.2 [Sample Nondisclosure and Conflict of Interest
Agreement]{.underline}

As discussed in section C.1 of this Guidebook, every person (other than
a Civil Servant) who is asked to serve as reviewer of proposals
submitted to NASA must sign a statement concerning the nondisclosure of
the proposal materials to which they may have access either as a mail-in
reviewer or as a member of a review panel that will consider the
proposal, as well as their obligation to disclose any conflicts of
interest that they may have with either the proposing personnel or
organizations. Once signed, these agreements are kept on permanent file
by NASA, and no proposal materials are sent to a reviewer without
confirming that his/her agreement is on file. An example of such an
agreement is reproduced as follows:

> PROPOSAL PEER REVIEW NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT,
>
> AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST AVOIDANCE
>
> In the performance of peer review of proposals submitted to NASA, the
> undersigned may have access to or be furnished with information that
> contains unpublished research results, unpublished research ideas,
> and/or proprietary plans, information, and budgetary data. All NASA
> supervisory and management personnel and reviewers, and all non-NASA
> participants, are bound by Federal regulations to maintain the
> confidentiality of such information and to avoid conflicts of interest
> in the review process. (Note that Federal law prohibits Federal
> employees from making unauthorized disclosure of confidential
> information (18 U.S.C. 1905)). Therefore, with respect to any
> proposals that may be furnished to or discussed in the presence of the
> undersigned, or that the undersigned may have access to or learns
> about, the undersigned agrees:
>
> 1\) to use such data and information only for the purpose of carrying
> out the requested proposal review;
>
> 2\) to refrain from disclosing or discussing such data and information
> with submitters of proposals, other reviewers, non-NASA support
> personnel, or NASA personnel outside the meetings of any designated
> peer review sessions;
>
> 3\) to refrain from copying in part or all of any proposals that may
> be provided;
>
> 4\) to return to NASA all proposals that may be provided along with
> all review sheets and other forms that have been generated in the
> course of the review process, or to make other disposition of such
> materials as directed by NASA;
>
> 5\) to exercise due care to avoid any real or apparent conflict of
> interest in carrying out any reviews (in particular, a reviewer is not
> permitted to take part in the review of a proposal that originates
> from his/her home organization; or if any of the proposal\'s personnel
> are closely related to the reviewer, e.g., household family members,
> partners, or professional associates; or if the reviewer has a
> financial interest in the proposing organization, e.g., ownership of
> stock or securities, employment, or arrangements for employment). In
> addition, proposal reviewers agree to avoid the real or apparent
> conflict of interest created by participating in the peer review for a
> particular solicitation for which they or professional associates
> (e.g. from their home organization) have submitted substantially
> similar investigations; and
>
> 6\) to advise NASA of the disclosure of any information obtained from
> NASA that is disclosed, used, or handled in a manner inconsistent with
> this agreement.
>
> Printed Name, Signature, and Date:

### E.3 Sample Proposal Evaluation Form

The following Sample Proposal Evaluation Form reflects the principles
discussed in Appendix C of this *Guidebook* for the evaluation of
proposals submitted to an NRA, where it is understood that the blocks
for strengths, weaknesses, and narrative text are of unrestricted size.
The actual form is typically customized to reflect the objectives and
needs of the particular NRA for which a proposal was submitted.

**[PROTOTYPE PROPOSAL EVALUATION FORM]{.underline}**

> *\[Note: This Evaluation Form is only representative of what might be
> provided to the reviewers based on the unique specifications for the
> solicited proposals; in particular, Criteria 2 and 3 may be evaluated
> in separate venues from that used for Criteria 1.\]*

  ---------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
  **Proposal No.:**      

  **PI/Organization:**   

  **Proposal Title:**    
  ---------------------- ----------------------------------------------------

**1. [Intrinsic Merit of Proposed Research]{.underline}** *\[Note:
Individual, weights may be specified for the four main characteristics
below; comments are to be expressed in terms of Strengths and Weaknesses
that may be differentiated as Major and Minor as appropriate.\]*

> • Overall Scientific and Technical Merit.
>
> o Intent and relevance:
>
> \- Scientific importance of the proposed investigation to the field.
>
> \- Clarity and completeness of proposed investigation.
>
> o Proposed methodology and approach:
>
> \- Technical feasibility and merit of proposed research plan.
>
> \- Clarity and completeness of proposed research plan.
>
> o Expectation of closure of effort based on proposed activities.
>
> • Capabilities, relevant experience, and facilities of proposing
> organization.
>
> • Qualifications, capabilities, and relevant experience of proposing
> personnel.
>
> • Overall standing of proposal among similar proposals and against
> state-of-the-art.

**Summary Evaluation For Intrinsic Merit** *\[Note: This Summary may be
as long as required but it [must]{.underline} reflect the documented
Strengths and Weaknesses.\]*

**2. [Relevance to NASA\'s Objectives]{.underline}** \[*Note: Even if
evaluation of this factor is reserved for separate determination by
NASA, comments from Science/Technical reviewer's are sometimes solicited
and always welcome*.\]

> Relevance to the specific objectives in the solicitation and to the
> themes and goals of the sponsoring NASA Program Office's current
> Strategic Plan.

**3. [Cost Realism and Reasonableness]{.underline}** *\[Note: Even if
evaluation of this factor is reserved for separate determination by
NASA, comments from Science/Technical reviewer's are sometimes solicited
and always welcome.\]*

Realism of cost in terms of proposed scope/tasks and reasonableness of
cost in context of proposed personnel and purchases/travel/direct
costs*.*

### **Summary Evaluation OF PROPOSAL**

> • **[Narrative Text]{.underline}** \[Note: Length of narrative text
> may be as long as required, but it must reflect documented strengths
> and weaknesses; if assessing a descoped proposal, it must clearly
> identify and justify the recommended deletions from original
> proposal.\]
>
> • **[Overall Summary Evaluation]{.underline}** *\[Note: Only one
> rating box is to be checked consistent with narrative Summary
> Evaluation.\]*

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p id="excellent" class="heading">Excellent</p></td>
<td colspan="2"><h6 id="evg">E/VG</h6></td>
<td colspan="2"><p id="very-good" class="heading">Very Good</p></td>
<td><h6 id="vgg">VG/G</h6></td>
<td><p id="good" class="heading">Good </p></td>
<td>G/F</td>
<td><p id="fair" class="heading"> Fair </p></td>
<td>F/P</td>
<td><p id="poor" class="heading"> Poor </p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p id="section-1" class="heading"></p></td>
<td><h6 id="section-2"></h6></td>
<td colspan="2"><p id="section-3" class="heading"></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><h6 id="section-4"></h6></td>
<td><p id="section-5" class="heading"></p></td>
<td></td>
<td><p id="section-6" class="heading"></p></td>
<td></td>
<td><p id="section-7" class="heading"></p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

[Guidelines for Determination of Overall Evaluation]{.underline}

> • A competent proposal that demonstrates a credible response to the
> solicitation but strengths and weaknesses essentially balance each
> other is properly designated as "Good."
>
> • In the absence of significant Weaknesses, a finding of Strengths of
> increasing significance and number generally warrants a progressively
> better rating, and vice versa for findings of Weaknesses. However,
> even a single Major Weakness that identifies a fatal or
> "uncorrectable" flaw or shortcoming is sufficient to offset any number
> of Strengths and may justify a rating of less than Good.
>
> • If a significant Weakness may be nullified by the [unambiguous
> deletion]{.underline} ("descoping") of a well-identified element or
> provision of the proposal, the proposal may be rated a second time
> under the express condition of that descoping.

###### APPENDIX F

### **FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS**

F.1 [Who answers questions about an award]{.underline}?

Questions on technical matters prior to an award should be addressed to
the NASA Program Officer listed in the original NRA. Questions on
technical matters after an award are addressed to the Technical Monitor
identified on the cover page of the award document. Questions about
administrative and budgetary matters are addressed to the NASA Award
(i.e., Grants or Contracting) Officer. The PI's organizational
research/grants office will know this point of contact from the official
award document. It is important for the PI to know the various points of
contact, including his/her organization's research/grants office, the
NASA Award Officer, the NASA Technical Monitor, and/or the NASA Program
Officer. Note that the NASA Technical Monitor and Program Officer may be
the same person.

F.2 [Is all the information in this Guidebook needed to submit a
proposal]{.underline}?

Starting with the formal publication of this Guidebook, most NRAs
released by NASA Headquarters will only contain information specific to
the technical description of that one advertised program. The NRA will
then refer prospective proposers to this Guidebook for all common or
\"default\" requirements, policies, procedures, and formats to be used
for the preparation of proposals unless specifically exempted otherwise
in the NRA. It is the intention of NASA to restrict exceptions to these
standards to items that are unique to a given NRA.

F.3 [Who is responsible for what]{.underline}?

The Principal Investigator is expected to provide scientific and
technical leadership for the proposed research and the timely
publication of results. The PI's organization has responsibility for
general supervision of all award activities, especially for all
fiduciary matters, and also for notifying NASA of any significant
problems relating to financial or administrative matters, including
issues of scientific misconduct and when the PI must be changed for some
reason (see also F.9 below). NASA is responsible for the appropriate and
timely review, selection, and funding of proposals submitted in response
to the NRA and for monitoring the selected proposals during their
periods of performance.

F.4 [Who determines the type of award to be made]{.underline}?

For non-NASA recipients, NASA determines the appropriate funding
instrument (a grant, a contract, or a cooperative agreement; an
interagency agreement; or an intra-NASA funding instrument) for each
award based on the nature of the program for which the competition was
held and the type of proposing organization. Occasionally an NRA will
specify that only one type of award will be made based on its unique
circumstances or requirements.

F.5 [Who monitors an award]{.underline}?

An award is monitored by the NASA Technical Monitor or the Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, who serves as an official resource
to the NASA Grants or Contracting Officer, respectively. This person is
knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the award and provides
scientific and technical advice, including reviews of progress reports,
to the Award Officer. The Award Officer has responsibility to ensure
that the award is properly administered, including technical, cost, and
schedule aspects.

F.6 [Is it \"my\" award]{.underline}?

Although the PI usually originates and writes the proposal and has
technical/scientific leadership of the work, NASA's funding awards are
legally issued to the proposing organization at which the PI is employed
and not to the PI personally. Although a PI may use the term \"my
grant\" (or contract or cooperative agreement), the distinction between
the PI and the legal grant recipient is real, and the PI should
understand the various responsibilities for the administration of the
award due to this distinction.

F.7 [Must every proposal include certain documents]{.underline}?

Awards for financial assistance are subject to certain U.S. statutory
and other general requirements, such as compliance with the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and other
laws and regulations, e.g., prohibition of discrimination; prohibition
of misconduct in science and engineering; requirements for a drug-free
workplace; restrictions on lobbying; requirements for patents and
copyrights; and the use of U.S.-flag carriers for international travel,
whenever possible. For all NRAs submitted through the NASA's electronic
proposal system, the signature on the Proposal Cover Page by the
Authorizing Official of the proposing organization certifies that the
organization is cognizant of and in compliance with all applicable
certifications (for information purposes these certifications are given
in Section E.1 of Appendix E of this Guidebook).

F.8 [Once an award has been implemented, for what must prior approval be
requested]{.underline}?

Prior approval requirements are set forth in the FAR, the NFS, and the
*NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook*. Several of the most
common situations requiring prior written authorization from NASA are:

• transfer of the project to another organization at which the PI takes
employment (see also F.9 below);

> • a substantive change in objectives or scope of the project;

• a change in the designation of the PI, e.g., because of his/her change
in employment status, retirement, or death;

> • a substantial change in the PI's commitment of effort;
>
> • new or revised allocations for purchase of major equipment;

• the intent to award a subcontract in excess of \$100,000 or to
purchase equipment in excess of \$5000 that was not part of the original
budget; and/or

> • actions involving a change of obligations (legally called a
> "novation").

The recipient organization requests approval for such actions from the
NASA Award Officer, who often will ask for a recommendation from the
cognizant Technical Monitor. However, only the NASA Award Officer can
officially approve or deny such requests.

F.9 [What happens if the PI changes organizations]{.underline}?

When a PI leaves his/her organization during the course of an award to
that organization, that organization has the option of nominating an
appropriately qualified replacement PI or recommending termination of
the award. In the former case, NASA has the right of approval of the
recommended replacement PI. If the replacement is approved, the award
continues at the original organization through its nominal period of
performance. However, if NASA judges that participation of the original
PI is critical to the project owing to his/her unique knowledge and
capabilities, then NASA will seek the agreement of both the PI's
original and new organizations for the termination of the original aware
at the PI's original organization followed by implementation of a new
award at the PI's new organization to complete the project.

F.10 [Who owns any equipment purchased through the award]{.underline}?

Title to most equipment purchased or fabricated for the purpose of
conducting research by an academic organization or other nonprofit
organization using NASA funds normally vests with the recipient
organization of the award. In some instances, NASA may elect to take
title but, if so, the recipient will be notified of that intention when
the purchase is approved by NASA. Title to equipment acquired by a
commercial organization using Federal funds provided through any type of
award vests with the Government.

F.11 [Can an award be suspended or terminated]{.underline}?

The award document will contain procedures that define conditions for
suspension or termination of awards. For example, lack of adequate
progress in meeting the objectives of the award or failure to submit
required reports set forth in the award document on a timely basis may
be grounds for termination of an award. Awards may also be terminated by
mutual agreement between the recipient organization and NASA. In the
event of a termination, the recipient is not entitled to expend any more
funds except to the extent required to meet commitments that, in the
judgment of NASA, had become firm before the effective date of the
termination. A suspension of advance payments may also occur when a
recipient demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to comply with
financial reporting requirements. Where this occurs, the recipient would
be required to finance its operations with its own funds, and NASA would
reimburse the recipient's costs. Advance payments would be reinstated
upon corrective action by the recipient organization. An award may also
be terminated in cases of professional misconduct on the part of the PI.

F.12 [Are there required reports]{.underline}?

The two types of technical reports generally required for grants are as
follows. Starting sometime in 2006, both of them are expected to be
submitted through a specified World Wide Web site using a unique
identification number given to the successful proposal:

> • ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT \-- For multiple year awards, NASA requires
> that a brief progress report be submitted to the Program Officer 60
> days before the anniversary date of the award, in order to allow for
> the timely recommendation for a continuation of funding.
>
> • SUMMARY OF RESEARCH \-- NASA requires a final summary of research
> report to be submitted to the NASA Awards Officer and the Program
> Officer for every award at the completion of the period of
> performance. This report should include substantive results from the
> work, as well as references to all published materials from the work,
> and is due within 90 days after the end of the award.

Other reports, in addition to technical reports, are required that
include financial, property, invention or other specialized reports
applicable for certain types of grants (such as education grants). The
award document will include a complete list of required reports and
schedules for their submission. Especially significant is the Federal
Cash Transaction Report (SF 272) that is due at the end of each Federal
fiscal quarter from the organization holding the award.

If the resulting award is a contract, reporting requirements will be
detailed in the award.

F.13 [What is NASA's policy about releasing data and results derived
through its sponsored research awards]{.underline}?

As a Federal Agency, NASA requires prompt public disclosure of the
results of its sponsored research and, therefore, expects significant
findings from supported research to be promptly submitted for peer
reviewed publication with authorship(s) that accurately reflects the
contributions of those involved. Likewise, as a general policy and
unless otherwise specified, NASA no longer recognizes a "proprietary"
period for exclusive use of any new scientific data that may be acquired
through the execution of the award; instead, all data collected through
any of its funded programs are to be placed in the public domain at the
earliest possible time following their validation and calibration.
However, small amounts of data (for example, as might be taken during
the course of a suborbital (rocket or balloon), Space Shuttle, or Space
Station investigation) are usually left in the care of the Principal
Investigator. In any case, NASA may require that any data obtained
through an award be deposited in an appropriate public data archive as
soon as possible after calibration and reduction. If so, NASA will
negotiate with the organization for appropriate transfer of the data
and, as necessary, may provide funds to convert the data into an easily
used format using standard units.

F.14 [How is NASA to be acknowledged in publications]{.underline}?

All publications of any material based on or developed under NASA
sponsored projects should conclude with the following acknowledgement:

\"This material is based upon work supported by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration under Grant/Contract/Agreement No. \<*xxxxxx*\>
issued through the Office of \<*XYZ*\> \<*or ABC Program, as
appropriate*\>.\"

Except for articles or papers published in peer-reviewed scientific,
technical, or professional journals, the exposition of results from NASA
supported research should also include the following disclaimer:

\"Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed
in this article \<*or report, material, etc*.\> are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.\"

Finally, as a courtesy, any releases of NASA photographic or
illustrative data products should list NASA first on the credit line
followed by the name of the PI institution, for example,

\"Photograph \<*or illustration, figure, etc*.\> courtesy of NASA \<o*r
NASA Center managing the mission or program*\> and the \<*Principal
Investigator institution*\>.\"

F.15 [Can audits occur, and are they important]{.underline}?

Yes, Government auditors frequently check contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements for evidence of fraud, waste, and/or
mismanagement by the recipient organization. Therefore, it is important
to keep clear and accurate records to avoid misunderstandings.

F.16 [What are the uses of a No Cost Extension]{.underline}?

A no cost extension to an award allows the completion of the objectives
for which the proposal was selected that have not been accomplished in
the originally specified period of performance owing to unforeseen
circumstances (e.g., the inability to hire a critically important
graduate student or postdoctoral employee in time; the breakdown of a
unique and critical piece of equipment; or the inability to coordinate
important activities with Co-Is through circumstances beyond the control
of the PI). A no cost extension may [not]{.underline} be implemented
merely to use funds that are unspent because of the untimely planning of
activities within the original period of performance. For a one-time
extension of a grant or a cooperative agreement with a noncommercial
firm, the recipient must notify NASA in writing with the supporting
reasons and revised expiration date (not to exceed twelve months) before
the expiration date specified in the award. For cooperative agreements
with commercial firms, the parties may extend the expiration date if
additional time is required to complete the milestones at no increase in
Government resources. Requests for approval for no cost extensions must
be forwarded to the NASA Agreement Officer no later than ten days prior
to the expiration of the award to be considered. For a contract, an
appropriate request must be submitted for NASA's approval by the
recipient organization. See further details on No Cost Extensions in
Section D.3 of Appendix D of this Guidebook and Provisions 1260.23, and
1274.909 of the *Grants and Cooperative Agreements Handbook* (see
Appendix A for Web site).

F.17 [Why are all these requirements and details about research awards
necessary]{.underline}?

Funding for research using U.S. Federal monetary resources is a
privilege accorded to U.S. organizations by NASA acting on behalf of the
U.S. Congress and the public at large. The recipient is legally
obligated to use the funds appropriately and conscientiously to justify
their continued appropriation through the Federal budget. This
obligation necessarily entails attention to the details of how the award
is competed and selected, and then how the selected activities are
carried out, in order to provide public accountability of the Nation's
financial resources throughout the process.

F.18 [Why aren't all proposals that are highly rated by peer review
selected for funding]{.underline}?

Although a proposal in response to an NRA may nominally be judged by
peer review to be of intrinsically high merit, it still may not be
selected owing to the programmatic issues of relevance to NASA's stated
interests and/or to budget limitations (see also Section C.2 of Appendix
C of this Guidebook). Regarding this latter factor, most of NASA's NRAs
are oversubscribed by factors ranging typically from two to five or even
higher. The entirety of the factors leading to a decision of selection
or nonselection will be conveyed to the proposers during the course of a
debriefing after selections are announced (see Section C.6 of Appendix
C).

F.19 [Are proposals from NASA Centers subject to peer review, and are
their budgets based on Full Cost Accounting]{.underline}?

All proposals submitted in response to an NRA are subjected to exactly
the same peer review process regardless of the submitting organization,
including NASA Centers. NASA is now operating using full cost budgeting,
accounting, and management practices. As such, all research proposals
should be submitted with fully loaded costs including procurement, civil
service labor, travel, service pools, center G&A, and corporate G&A.
NASA researchers answering NRAs should comply with the full cost
policies. Non-NASA researchers answering NRAs should work with the NASA
sponsoring organization to ensure all direct and institutional (NASA
facilities and civil service labor) are adequately accounted for. The
web address for NASA's Full Cost Initiative is:
<http://www.hq.nasa.gov/fullcost>.

F.20 [Why is an award sometimes slow in being implemented after
selection]{.underline}?

NASA is committed to implement awards within 46 days after the
selections are announced to the proposers. However, sometimes additional
materials are needed from the proposer (e.g., revised budgets and/or
budget details) before NASA may legally obligate Federal money.
Contracts and cooperative agreements with for profit entities generally
take longer owing to greater complexity. Finally, NASA's ability to
distribute funds is dependent on the timely approval of its budget
through the Federal budget process, which occasionally may be delayed;
such a delay can significantly affect the implementation of awards,
especially those whose nominal start dates would fall in the first
quarter of the Fiscal Year (October through December).

F.21 [Who may be listed as participating personnel on a
proposal]{.underline}?

Every person who has agreed in writing (see Section 2.3.10) to perform a
significant role in a proposed effort, even if at no cost, is entitled
to be listed as a Co-I (see also Section 1.4.2). However, since one of
the nominal requirements for the Science/Technical/Management Section of
a proposal is the justification of each key member of a proposal's team
(see Section 2.3.5), proposers are reminded that the stated
contributions and qualifications of proposal personnel will be evaluated
as part of the peer review process. Inclusion of unjustified personnel
can lead to a downgrading of a proposal's rating.

F.22 [How does the NASA Research Announcement (NRA) differ from other
types of NASA research solicitations]{.underline}?

NASA commonly issues three types of solicitations for scientific and
technical research that are broadly defined as follows:

-   [NASA Research Announcement (NRA)]{.underline} -- A NRA is used to
    solicit and competitively select relatively nonspecific research,
    technology, and/or education projects and investigations to be
    funded through NASA's ongoing Research and Analysis budgets. Awards
    made through NRAs are typically for three years and for relatively
    limited amounts of money (\$50 to 200 K), although some awards can
    be as much as \$1 M (e.g., construction and flight of a suborbital
    experiment payload). NRA awards are most commonly in the form of
    grants but at NASA's discretion, and depending on the nature of the
    proposing organization, may be a contract or a cooperative
    agreement.

-   [Announcement of Opportunity (AO)]{.underline} -- An AO is used to
    competitively select relatively well-defined science investigations
    for a specific research opportunity funded by a specific element in
    NASA's budget, most commonly a NASA space mission (or program of
    missions such as the Explorer missions) that may, but does not
    always, involve the provision and operation of experiment hardware.
    Science investigations carried out through an AO almost always
    involve a considerable degree of oversight by NASA to ensure
    adherence to cost and schedule requirements and are almost always
    funded through a contract since well-defined "deliverables" are
    involved. Contracts awarded through an AO can be for hundreds of
    millions of dollars and may have periods of performance lasting ten
    years or more for space flight missions.

-   [Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN)]{.underline} -- A CAN is used to
    solicit unique research programs and/or related activities that
    involves a relatively high degree of interaction and cooperation
    between NASA and the selected recipient(s) to achieve NASA's desired
    objectives (e.g., to develop and operate a research institute, an
    extensive educational/public outreach activity, or a specified
    technology capability). Funding through a CAN is always done through
    a cooperative agreement award and can be for amounts up to several
    millions of dollars and for time periods as long as five years.

Most NRAs issued by NASA Headquarters will rely upon this Guidebook to
specify the organization and submission of proposals. However, because
of their highly unique characteristics, AOs and CANs will usually
include their own specific instructions concerning the format and
content of proposals, although frequently the instructions for a
proposal's Proposal Cover Page may be identical to that given in this
Guidebook owing to the use of the common proposal data base system by
Headquarters that is accessed at <http://nspires.nasaprs.com/>.

F.23 [What is NASA's policy for submitting late proposals]{.underline}?

Proposals or proposal modifications received after the latest date
specified for receipt may be considered if a significant reduction in
cost to the Government is probable or if there are significant technical
advantages, as compared with proposals previously received.

F.24 [Why doesn't NASA release the names of its reviewers]{.underline}?

NASA solicits the most knowledgeable, non-conflicted peers available to
review the proposals it receives. It is NASA's opinion, which is
generally substantiated by the opinions of the reviewers it has used,
that preserving the anonymity of the participants in the review process
promotes more candid comments than if this practice was not used. During
the conduct of a panel a NASA Program Officer is present to ensure that
the discussions and written text on the review forms remain focused on
the technical qualities of the proposals being discussed. The only
review comments that are actually preserved for the record are those on
the Summary Evaluation form, which reflects the considered opinion of
the [entire]{.underline} panel and not those of any one reviewer.