![](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: January 2003\***

*\*Including subsequent administrative corrections summarized on
enclosed Errata Sheet*

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="7.729166666666667in" height="10.0in"}

**This page has an image on it. If it does not appear, put your cursor**

**on this page and double click.**

**Errata Sheet**

The initial version of the January 2003 edition of the Guidebook has
been subsequently updated through incorporation of the following
administrative corrections:

1.  On January 31, 2003, the following changes were made:

    a.  On page 2-9, §2.3.11(b), first paragraph, an extraneous word
        ("the") was deleted.

    b.  On page B-3, in paragraph (e) entitled "Length", the statement
        referring to "1520 pages" was corrected to read "15 to 20
        pages".

    c.  Unnecessary page breaks were deleted in the PDF version of the
        document.

**[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) AND PROPOSAL
PROCESSES]{.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 Institutions and Personnel
>
> 1.4.1 Proposing Institutions
>
> 1.4.2 Proposal Personnel
>
> 1.5 Successor Proposals
>
> 1.6 Proposals Involving Non-U.S. Participants
>
> 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
>
> 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 Regulations 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. [ADMINISTRATION OF RESEARCH AWARDS]{.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 Extension of an Award
>
> 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 institutions?
>
> 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 a Co-I on a proposal?

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

F.23 Why can't NASA be more flexible about receiving 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 relevant 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 at the Web site
<http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codez/plans.html>:

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.

In pursuit of these goals, NASA's programs are organized into five
Strategic Enterprises called:

-   Aerospace Technology,

-   Biological and Physical Research,

-   Earth Science,

-   Human Exploration and Development of Space, and

-   Space Science.

These Enterprises pursue NASA's goals using a wide variety of ground-,
aeronautical-, and space-based programs. 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
institutions 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 institutions, 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/>. In particular,
the NASA Headquarter's program offices that issue NRA's that may
incorporate this Guidebook by formal reference are:

-   Office of Aerospace Technology

-   Office of Biological and Physical Research

-   Office of Earth Science

-   Office of Equal Opportunity Programs

-   Office of Human Resources and Education

-   Office of Space Flight.

-   Office of Space Science

**[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 (HBCU's), Other Minority Universities (OMU's),
and small disadvantaged businesses (SDB's) 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
(NRA's) released by NASA Headquarters may be accessed by opening
\"Research Opportunities\" from the menu on the NASA home page at
<http://www.nasa.gov/> and then selecting the program office of interest
(see listing above). Alternatively, the same menu of NASA's program
offices may be directly accessed through the Web address
<http://research.hq.nasa.gov/research.cfm>. Alternatively, the NASA
Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) provides an inclusive, searchable
data base 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 NRA's
that may be released by any of NASA's Field Centers.

As a matter of Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), all procurement
opportunities for which contracts may be used to fund the selected
participants must be advertised publicly at least 15 calendar days in
advance of their release. Therefore, all such notices, including the
NRA's addressed in this Guidebook, are formally posted electronically
through the Federal Business Opportunities Web site at
<http://www.fedbizopps.gov/>. Finally, as a service to the interested
research communities, some of NASA's Program Offices maintain their own
electronic notification systems for their own specific program
announcements. Directions for subscribing to these electronic
notification services are found by searching their home pages and
following the instructions therein.

**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 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 directives 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 Regulations
(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 several
cases note that the provisions of the NFS 1852.235 are specifically
amended by this Guidebook. In case of any conflict, the provisions of
the NFS or as specifically noted in the NRA itself, take precedence over
this Guidebook.

The funding mechanisms used by NASA for research selected through an NRA
are grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, interagency agreements,
and NASA's own internal processes for funding activities at its Centers
and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). For conciseness, the term
\"award' will be used hereafter in the remainder of 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 allocate
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, NRA's released by NASA that specifically
incorporate this Guidebook by reference will be patterned on a standard
format that, at a minimum, includes:

-   A short \"Summary of Solicitation\" that describes the program(s)
    for which proposals are solicited, summarizes pertinent information
    about the NRA, provides any additions or amendments to the standard
    guidance and/or formats given in this Guidebook for the preparation
    and submission of proposals, and is signed by the responsible NASA
    program official; and

-   An appendix, entitled \"Description of Program Opportunity,\" that
    describes in detail the objectives for which proposals are being
    solicited by that particular NRA.

Pursuant to Federal statute, all NRA\'s must be synopsized in the
Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) at <http://www.fedbizopps.gov/> at
least 15 calendar days prior to their release. If an NRA expressly
precludes the award of a contract as a funding instrument, posting in
the FBO is not legally required but NASA usually posts one anyway to
ensure notification of the solicitation to the broadest possible
audience. As a service to the interested members of the science,
technical, and educational research communities, some of 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 for each office
(see complete listing at <http://research.hq.nasa.gov/>). However, note
that NASA is not responsible for inadvertently failing to provide E-mail
notification of a future NRA. Finally, NRA's may also be accessed
through the menu listing "Business Opportunities" of NASA\'s Acquisition
Internet Service (NAIS) at <http://procurement.nasa.gov/>. 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 by opening \"Research
Opportunities\" on the home page of its sponsoring NASA program office
found through the menu at <http://research.hq.nasa.gov/research.cfm>.
Generally, advance notices of future NRA's are found at the same
location with a best estimate of its release date, though such advance
postings are not guaranteed. Notification of NRA's 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 and FBO 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
NRA's 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;

-   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
    institution(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
NRA's 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
evaluate the competitively-rated proposals against 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 provided with a debriefing to explain that
decision. Those proposers who are selected will be advised that their
institutions 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 and that
awards are made to the proposing institution 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 NRA's.

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, 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, to 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; that is,
NASA personnel may not encourage or otherwise "solicit" that a proposal
be submitted (see third item 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 Program
Office 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).

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.

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

1.4.1 Proposing Institutions

NASA accepts proposals in response to its NRA's submitted by all types
of U.S. and non-U.S. institutions 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
institutional categories is requested on the Proposal Cover Page (see
Section 2.3.2 below in this Guidebook):

> • [Educational Institution]{.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 (all such
> institutions are considered nonprofit).
>
> • [Nonprofit, Nonacademic Organization]{.underline} -- A private or
> Government supported research laboratory, university consortium,
> museum, observatory, professional society, educational organization,
> or similar institution 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} -- Institutions 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 NRA's may be issued jointly with a non-U.S.
> institution, 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
institution 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 NRA's may specifically disallow some or all of these
categories):

> [Principal Investigator (PI)]{.underline} -- Every proposal must
> 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 institution has the authority to designate the PI
> and to designate any replacements 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 are to 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 institution (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 institution 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 institution 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 institution, may also be designated as the
> \"Institutional PI\" for that Co-I's institution (Note: if
> specifically stated in the NRA, NASA may elect to provide an award
> directly to that Co-I institution with the Co-I/Institutional PI
> serving as a \"PI\" for that award at his/her institution).
>
> • A Co-I from a non-U.S. institution 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
> institution 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 institution, 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).

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

Holders of existing research awards frequently submit follow-on or
"successor proposals" to successive NRA's 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.

Nevertheless, such successor proposals are welcomed and encouraged, and
are expected to indicate 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 institution may not overlap an existing award.

1.6 [Proposals Involving Non-U.S. Institutions]{.underline} \[Ref.:
Appendix B, Section (l)\]

NASA welcomes proposals that in any way involve non-U.S. institutions
including those that request funds from NASA for support of U.S.
participants. Such proposals may be from U.S. institutions that include
participants employed by non-U.S. institutions or from non-U.S.
institutions that include participants employed by U.S. institutions. 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. institution 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 new 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.

1.7 [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 a submission 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 NRA's. Any deviations from the Guidebook will be
clearly identified in the NRA but will only be introduced if critically
needed for the unique needs of the program being solicited.

Guidance to the information requested on the required Proposal Cover
Page, which includes a Budget Summary and is needed for NRA's 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://proposals.hq.nasa.gov/proposals.cfm>. Note that
access into this Web site requires that the user initially register with
their name and institutional 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
"*Division Specific Opportunities*" that requires knowledge of the NASA
Headquarters Program Office that sponsors the NRA of interest (see list
in the Introduction to this Guidebook), or alternatively, one can select
"All" to have access to every currently open solicitation in any of the
Program Offices. After filling out and submitting the information
requested for the Proposal Cover Page, it is printed by the applicant
for securing the required signatures, and then reproduced for submission
with the hard copies of the proposal to the mailing address specified in
the NRA. Note that some NRA's may require additional prefatory
information on the Proposal Cover Page that augments the items discussed
in Section 2.3.2 below.

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}

Unless otherwise specified in the NRA of interest, the standard formats
for a proposal submitted in response to all NRA's 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,
> nor by reference to sites on the World Wide Web for information or
> material needed to either complete or to understand the proposal
> (Note: only the printed proposal is used for peer review);
>
> • 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 for all
> sections of the proposal (see Section 2.3 below) unless otherwise
> specified in the NRA.

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 in the order listed, using
the titles and page limits as given. 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)

> • *Proposal Cover Page* As printed from NASA proposal Internet site.
>
> • *Budget Summary* (contiguous with *Cover Page*) As printed from NASA
> proposal Internet site.
>
> • *Table of Contents* 1
>
> • *Summary of Personnel and Work Efforts* 1
>
> • *Scientific/Technical/Management Section* 15\*
>
> • *References and Citations* As needed.
>
> • *Facilities and Equipment* (if applicable to proposal) 2
>
> • *Curriculum Vitae for: the Principal Investigator* 3
>
> *for each Co-Investigators* 1
>
> • *Current and Pending Support* As needed.
>
> • *Co-I and/or Collaborator Commitments* As needed.
>
> • *Budget Details* (incl. Proposing Institution Budget) As needed.
>
> • *Special Notifications and/or Certifications* As needed.
>
> • *Reprint(s)/Preprint(s)* (optional) Not applicable.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

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

2.3.2 *Proposal Cover Page and Budget Summary*

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

All proposals must be prefaced by the integrated *Proposal Cover
Page*,/*Budget Summary* that is produced by electronically entering the
requested information through the World Wide Web site
<http://proposals.hq.nasa.gov/proposals.cfm>. Note that after accessing
this Web site and logging in, the user is presented with a menu entitled
"Division Specific Opportunities" that requires knowledge of the NASA
Headquarters Program Office that sponsors the NRA of interest (see list
in the Introduction to this Guidebook). After selecting the appropriate
Division (or "All" for access to all open solicitations) another menu
will appear that lists all of the research solicitations for which Cover
Pages may be generated (i.e., those solicitations whose proposal due
dates have not passed). Any proposer who experiences difficulty in using
the specified Web site or who cannot access the Web may request
assistance by E-mail to [proposals@hq.nasa.gov]{.underline}.

After this item is submitted electronically, it is then printed in hard
copy in order to obtain the authorizing original signatures of the PI
and the Institutional Official. This signed copy must be submitted with
the original copy of the proposal on or before the proposal due date. In
addition, reproductions of the signed *Proposal Cover Page* are used to
preface the required printed copies of the proposal. (Note that this
data system automatically assigns a unique proposal identifier code to
each entry, e.g., "LWSGD02-0004-0003," that will appear in a
double-framed box in the upper right corner of printed *Proposal Cover
Page*; this number is used by NASA throughout the proposal review and
selection process to uniquely identify the proposal and its associated
electronic data.)

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. Note that all of this information is needed in order for NASA to
complete a financial award with the proposing institution 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).

• [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). The printed version of this form includes a space for the
PI's signature.

• [Authorizing Official]{.underline}. Provide the name and title of the
Authorizing Official of the proposing institution, and the full mailing
address for the office that functions as proposing institution's Office
of Sponsored Research. The printed version of the form includes a space
for that Official's signature.

• [Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)]{.underline}. Every U.S.
institution (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 TIN in compliance with 31 U.S. Code 7702(c)(1).

• [Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code]{.underline}. Every U.S.
institution (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.

• [Team Members]{.underline}. A table is provided 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 this NASA data base in order to be listed in
this section; the proposing PI may [not]{.underline} register someone as
a Team Member).

• [Proposal Title]{.underline}. Provide both a Short Title (limit of 50
characters), as well as a Full Title of the proposed investigation,
which may be of any length or the same as the Short Title so long as it
is intelligible to a scientifically literate reader and suitable for use
in the public press.

• [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 activity (see Section 1.5 of
this Guidebook).

• [Proposed Start/End Dates]{.underline}. Provide the 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 NRA's is three years unless otherwise indicated).

• [Themes]{.underline}. This optional field allows the proposer to
select from among a number of different science themes or objectives as
may be specified in the NRA.

• [Summary of Proposal]{.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:

-- 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 institution, 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.)

• [Institution Type]{.underline}, using one of the categories defined in
Section 1.4.1 of this Guidebook.

• [International Participation]{.underline}: a [Yes/No]{.underline}
designation of whether the proposal involves participation by any
personnel employed by a non-U.S. organization (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).

• [U.S. Government Agency Participation]{.underline}: a Yes/No
designation of 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 name, role (see Section 1.4.2 above in
this Guidebook), 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 Details (see Section 2.3.11 in this
Guidebook).

• [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
>
> • Other Direct Costs
>
> -- Subcontracts
>
> -- Consultants
>
> -- Equipment
>
> -- Supplies
>
> -- Travel
>
> -- Other

• Facilities And Administrative (F&A) Costs (including fees)

> • Other Applicable Costs
>
> • Proposed Cost Sharing (if any)
>
> • Carryover Funds (if any)
>
> • Budget Total

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

> \(i\) The authorizing institutional signature also serves to verify
> that the proposing institution has read and is in compliance with all
> Federally required Assurances and Certifications (Note: [for reference
> only]{.underline}, 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).
>
> \(ii\) Electronic submission of only the *Proposal Cover Page* does
> not satisfy the deadline for proposal submission; the required number
> of copies of the proposal (as specified in the NRA), one with original
> signatures, 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).
>
> \(iii\) 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 institution through use of letterhead
stationary, project logos, etc.

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 intended work commitments (in
units of a percentage of a nominal full time Work Year of 1840 hours) 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.

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 default limit is 15 pages using the default
formats 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 institution(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 three 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 three 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-I's 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 institution,
> 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
institution. 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.\"

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).
>
> 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.

-- continued --

> -- continued --
>
> 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.
>
> -- continued --
>
> -- continued --
>
> 7\. Carryover Funds (if any): Enter the dollar amount of any funds
> expected to be available for carryover from the prior budget period.
> Identify how the funds will be used if they are not used to reduce the
> budget. NASA officials will decide whether to use all or part of the
> anticipated carryover to reduce the budget (not applicable to
> second-year and subsequent-year budgets submitted for award of a
> multiple year award).
>
> 8\. 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
> institutional 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
> institution 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 Institutions]{.underline}.
>
> \(a\) If a PI from any type of private or public institution proposes
> to team with a Co-I from and/or use a facility at a U.S. Government
> institution (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 institution.
>
> \(b\) If a PI from a U.S. Government institution (including NASA
> Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory) proposes to team with a
> Co-I from a non-Government institution, then the proposing Government
> institution must cover those Co-I costs through an appropriate award
> for which that Government PI institution is responsible. Such
> non-Government Co-I costs should be entered as a \"Subcontract\" on
> the Budget Summary.

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

> \(iv\) [Full-Cost Accounting at NASA Centers]{.underline}. NASA is
> expected to be operating on the basis of full cost accounting as soon
> as possible, including all Civil Service salaries with overhead. In
> the interim period, proposals involving NASA employees as either a PI
> or as a Co-I should use the accounting method authorized at their
> Centers at the time proposals are due and for the entire proposed
> period of performance.
>
> \(v\) [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 institution 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. institutions on a cooperative,
> no-exchange-of-funds basis. Although Co-I's or collaborators employed
> by non-U.S. institutions may be identified as part of a proposal
> submitted by a U.S. institution, NASA funding may not normally be used
> to support research efforts by non-U.S. institutions 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 institutions that propose the
> funding of U.S. Co-I's]{.underline}. A proposal submitted by a
> non-U.S. institution that involves U.S. Co-I's for whom NASA funding
> is requested must provide the budgets for those U.S. Co-I's in
> compliance with all applicable provisions in this Section 2.3.11. In
> addition, compliance is required by the proposing non-U.S. institution
> with the provisions of Section (l) of Appendix B.

2.3.12 *Special Notifications and/or Certifications*

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

Some NRA's 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. In addition, if any of the
proposal's personnel are from a non-U.S. institution, 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 from and/or preprints for peer-reviewed publications that are
considered critical to the background of a proposal may be appended to a
proposal. However, while there is no limit on the number of such items
that may be appended, proposers should note that NASA's reviewers are
instructed that there is no obligation to read them and that their
judgment of the proposal's merits is to be based only on the proposal's
contents and not on the perceived quality or quantity of any appended
items. Therefore, proposers are encouraged to include only the
[minimum]{.underline} of the most relevant of such items, which also
helps minimize the Government's costs of mailing the proposals to
reviewers.

**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 NRA\'s released by NASA
Headquarters that reference this Guidebook will request that an optional
Notice of Intent (NOI) to propose be submitted by typically 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 the
NASA Headquarters proposal data base [at
http://proposals.hq.nasa.gov/proposals.cfm](http://proposals.hq.nasa.gov/proposals.cfm)
and then selecting either "All" or the NRA's sponsor in the menu
entitled "Division Specific Opportunities," which will then open a menu
of those solicitations for which the NOI deadlines have not passed (see
further below for the submission of late NOI's). Each individual NOI Web
page will include its unique alpha-numeric identifier and the mailing
address information for the applicant based on the information in NASA's
data system. 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 (any length but 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, the 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 [proposals@hq.nasa.gov]{.underline}.

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

Each NRA will prominently list the deadline for proposal submission in
the NRA's 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://proposals.hq.nasa.gov/proposals.cfm>. 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
[proposals@hq.nasa.gov]{.underline} 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 <proposals@hq.nasa.gov>,
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
institution (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 from 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 nonresponsive 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 submitted 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:

> \"*Unsolicited proposals*\" NFS 1815.6
>
> \"*Broad Agency Announcements*\" NFS 1835.016
>
> \"*NASA Research Announcements*\" NFS 1835.016-71
>
> \"*Instructions for Responding to NASA*
>
> *Research Announcements*\" NFS 1852.235-72 (reproduced as 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
>
> • Links to all NASA Headquarters Program Offices
>
> • Links to all NASA Field Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>
> • The master list of all current Broad Agency Announcements
>
> • The \"Tasks Books\" for each HQ Program Office that lists all
> currently supported research awards, including the Principal
> Investigator (PI) name, PI institution, and title and summary of the
> investigation (Note: some of the HQ program offices will not have Task
> Books in place).

• 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-ffm.html>:

> \"*Cost Principles for Educational Institutions*\" OMB Circular A-21
>
> \"*Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and*
>
> *Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education*,
>
> *Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations*\" OMB Circular A-110
>
> \"*Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations*\" OMB Circular A-122
>
> \"*Audits of States, Local Government And Non-Profit*
>
> *Organizations*" OMB Circular A-133

**APPENDIX B**

#### INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO

**[NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS]{.underline}**

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

(May 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 preaward 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.
>
> \(3\) NRA's 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 NRA's.
>
> \(4\) 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 NRA's 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 N*ASA Grant
> and Cooperative Agreement Handbook* (NPG 5800.1).
>
> \(5\) NASA does not have mandatory forms or formats for responses to
> NRA's; 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. NRA's 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 fulltime.
>
> \(ii\) 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 A122 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.

\(ii\) 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 to 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 institution 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.

**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 a week after the Proposal Due Date.
>
> • 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 and
> budgetary aspects of the proposals, but these comments are for NASA\'s
> information only and are not considered binding nor folded into the
> overall evaluation determination.
>
> • 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 and is offered a
> debriefing based on its identified strengths and weaknesses. This
> debriefing will be accomplished either by sending the peer reviews by
> mail to the proposer or by oral communication.
>
> • Official notification of selection for the solicitation is then
> forwarded by the Program Officer to a NASA Award Office that will
> contact the proposing institution to negotiate funding through an
> appropriate award instrument (see further in Appendix D in this
> Guidebook).

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

As a general rule, the evaluation criteria in Appendix B, Part (i), of
this Guidebook, as amended below by the words in italics, will apply to
all NRA\'s released by NASA, although they may be augmented and/or
amended in each 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. 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 chairperson of
the panel and the attending NASA Program Officer.

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 comprehensive, thorough,  | Top priority for funding |
| Excellent]{ | and compelling proposal of  | pending the availability |
| .underline} | exceptional merit that      | of funds and             |
|             | fully responds to the       | programmatic balance in  |
|             | objectives of the NRA as    | the context of the       |
|             | documented by numerous      | objectives of the NRA    |
|             | and/or significant          | and/or the existing      |
|             | strengths and having no     | program as a whole.      |
|             | major weaknesses.           |                          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| [Very       | A fully competent proposal  | Second priority for      |
| Good]{      | of very high merit that     | selection pending (i)    |
| .underline} | fully responds to the       | the availability of      |
|             | objectives of the NRA,      | funds, (ii) that         |
|             | whose strengths fully       | programmatic balance is  |
|             | outbalance any minor        | not an issue, and (iii)  |
|             | weaknesses and that has no  | that no Excellent        |
|             | major weaknesses.           | proposal having          |
|             |                             | substantially the same   |
|             |                             | objective(s) is          |
|             |                             | displaced.               |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| [Good]{     | A competent proposal that   | May be selected as funds |
| .underline} | rep-resents a credible      | permit for purposes of   |
|             | response to the NRA, having | programmatic balance     |
|             | neither significant         | once all Excellent and   |
|             | strengths nor weakness and  | Very Good proposals      |
|             | whose minor strengths and   | having dissimilar        |
|             | weaknesses essentially      | objectives are funded.   |
|             | balance.                    |                          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| [Fair]{     | A proposal that provides a  | Not selectable           |
| .underline} | nominal response to the NRA | regardless of the        |
|             | but whose weaknesses        | availability of funds.   |
|             | outweigh any perceived      |                          |
|             | strengths.                  |                          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+
| [Poor]{     | A seriously flawed proposal | Not selectable           |
| .underline} | having one or more major    | regardless of the        |
|             | weaknesses (e.g., an        | availability of funds.   |
|             | inadequate or flawed plan   |                          |
|             | of research, or lack of     |                          |
|             | focus on the objectives of  |                          |
|             | the NRA).                   |                          |
+-------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------+

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 would effectively prevent in part or wholly the proposed objectives
from being accomplished, or that otherwise may render the proposal
unsuitable for consideration for funding (e.g., the proposal fails to
address the NRA's 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 between 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 institution, 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. 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 institution. 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 may be inferred from any communication, 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 institution, 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 institution\'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 institution, 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 deliverables
> 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 institutions 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 deliverables 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
institution. 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 applies 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 at least ten days
> 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 paragraphs 1260.23 and
> 1260.1255(e)(2) of the *Grants and Cooperative Agreements Handbook*
> (see Appendix A for Web site) for further details.
>
> • 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 § 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.

These procedures do not apply to cooperative agreements with for profit
entities.

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. 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 any proposal from every institution, except U.S.
Federal institutions, that respond to a Federal research solicitation as
given in Sections E.1.2 through E.1.4 below. In order to reduce paper
work required by the submitting institutions, the "Certification of
Compliance...," reproduced directly below, is now included at the top of
the printout of the *Proposal Cover Page* that affirms that these
requirements are met by the proposing institution once the printed
version of the *Cover Page* is signed by the Authorizing Official of the
proposing institution (or by the individual proposer if there is no
proposing institution) 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.

> [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 institution (or the individual proposer if
> there is no proposing institution) 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 NRA's 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, they will be provided in the individual
NRA\'s.

> E.1.2 Assurance of Compliance with the National Aeronautics and Space
> Administration Regulations Pursuant to Nondiscrimination in Federally
> Assisted Programs
>
> "The Institution, 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 prime
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
institutions. 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:
>
> -- continued --
>
> -- continued --
>
> 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 institution; 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 institution, 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 institution) 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/Institution:**   

  **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
> institution.**
>
> **• 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** *\[Note: narrative length as
required but [must]{.underline} reflect the documented Strengths and
Weaknesses.\]*

**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.**

-- continued--

-- continued--

**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 available funds*.***

### **Summary Evaluation OF PROPOSAL**

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

+-----------+-----+------------+------+------+----+-----+----+------+
| #######   | ##  | #######    | ###  | ##   | G  | ##  | F  | ##   |
| Excellent | ### |  Very Good | ###  | #### | /F | ### | /P | #### |
|           | # E |            | VG/G | #  G |    | ##  |    | #  P |
|           | /VG |            |      | ood  |    |  Fa |    | oor  |
|           |     |            |      |      |    | ir  |    |      |
+-----------+-----+------------+------+------+----+-----+----+------+
| #######   | #   | #######    | ###  | #### |    | ##  |    | #### |
|           | ### |            | ###  | ###  |    | ### |    | ###  |
|           | ##  |            |      |      |    | ##  |    |      |
+-----------+-----+------------+------+------+----+-----+----+------+

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

> *• A proposal that demonstrates a credible response to the
> solicitation but that has neither significant strengths nor weaknesses
> 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 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 institutional
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 institution'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 NRA's
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 institution 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 institution. 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 institution 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.

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. The signature on the Proposal Cover Page by the
Authorizing Official of the proposing institution certifies that the
institution 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 institution 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 a change in
> employment status;
>
> • a substantial change in the PI's commitment of effort;
>
> • new or revised allocations for purchase of 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 institutions]{.underline}?

When a PI leaves his/her organization during the course of an award to
that institution, 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 institution 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 institutions for the implementation of a new award at
the PI's new institution 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 institution or other nonprofit
organization using NASA funds normally vests with the recipient
institution 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 institution 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 institution.

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

The two types of technical reports generally required for grants are as
follows. Starting sometime in 2003, 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 institution 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 institution 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, without any exceptions, all releases of photographic or
illustrative data products must list NASA first on the credit line
followed by the name of the PI organization, 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-I's 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, the recipient must notify NASA in writing
with the supporting reasons and revised expiration data at least 10 days
before the expiration date specified in the award. For a contract, an
appropriate request must be submitted for NASA' approval by the
recipient institution. In either case, NASA will not accept requests for
an augmentation to an award during a no cost extension, and any
successor proposal that is selected will not be funded until a no cost
extension has expired. See further details on No Cost Extensions in
Section D.3 of Appendix D of this Guidebook and paragraphs 1260.23 and
1260.1255(e)(2) 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. institutions 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 NRA's
are oversubscribed by factors ranging typically from two to five and can
be even much 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. In the near future, NASA is expecting to be
operating on the basis of full cost accounting, which will be applicable
to all research proposals submitted by its Centers and the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. This new accounting practice is being implemented
as rapidly as possible.

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, proposers are
reminded that, 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), then 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 NRA's 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 NRA's issued by NASA Headquarters will rely upon this Guidebook to
specify the organization and submission of proposals. However, because
of their highly unique characteristics, AO's and CAN's 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 through the Web site
<http://proposals.hq.nasa.gov/proposals.cfm>.

F.23 [Why isn't NASA more flexible about receiving late
proposals]{.underline}?

Regardless of the reason for its being late, submission of a proposal
after the deadline inherently allows that proposer additional time to
prepare his/her submission, which in principle gives the proposal a
competitive advantage over those submitted on time. Even if this were
not the case, in practice the accommodation of late proposals creates
logistical problems since, within only a few working days after their
due date, all proposals must be screened for compliance and
completeness, logged in, and stored, and within five days NASA's support
contractor is required to provide a complete log of all proposals,
including the names of all proposal personnel, to the responsible
Program Officer to use for finalizing plans for the peer review.
Interrupting this process for even a few late proposals can impact the
review/selection schedule. As for a proposal being late because of
unforeseen circumstances beyond the PI's control, it is untenable for
NASA to judge the merits for each case to decide whether or not to
accept some while rejecting others.

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

NASA solicits the most knowledgeable, nonconflicted peers available to
review the proposals it receives. It is NASA's opinion, which is
generally substantiated by 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 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 opinion of the [entire]{.underline} panel and
not those of any one reviewer. After debriefing, a proposer has the
right to challenge what are perceived to be factual errors in this
consensus review.