**HIGH ENERGY SOLAR PHYSICS SUMMER SCHOOL**

**SMALL GRANTS PROPOSAL WRITING EXERCISE**

Proposals are solicited to provide research in support of present and
future high-energy solar physics research efforts. Approximately \$1M
(note: in "virtual dollars"!) annually is available for this opportunity
and it is expected that some 8 -- 10 proposals will be funded. Support
for multi-year efforts up to 3 years in duration may be requested;
however, such proposals will be evaluated carefully against the scope
and extent of the statement of work.

**Proposal Content**

Proposals should include at least the following information:

-   Table of Contents

-   Summary

-   Technical Information

-   References

-   Budget

-   CVs for major personnel

-   Current and Pending Support

The *summary* should not exceed 500 words and should be intelligible to
a scientifically literate non-specialist; it will be made available to
the public if the proposal is accepted.

The *technical information section* of the proposal is limited to 10
pages (single spaced, 12-point font, with margins of at least one inch
on all sides). It should be used to develop the main ideas of the
proposal, to show the relevance to the agency's mission in high-energy
solar physics research (e.g., the NASA Roadmap, available at
<http://sec.gsfc.nasa.gov/sec_2003_roadmap.htm>), and to justify the
requested budget.

All *references* cited in the body of the proposal must be listed in a
separate section, in standard scientific journal format.

The *budget* should reflect the statement of work in the technical
information section. Allowable costs are limited to the following:

-   Salaries (state number of months of effort for each separate salary
    line)

-   Fringe Benefits (according to customary institutional practices)

-   Equipment

-   Travel

-   Supplies and Materials

-   Subcontracts

-   Indirect costs in accord with customary institutional practices

Individuals who wish to propose costs in addition to the above should
contact the awarding agency for guidelines. Institutional cost-sharing
is encouraged, but not required.

CVs (limited to one page each) should be provided for the PI and for
each individual who is involved at least 0.1 WY/year (i.e., 10% time) on
the project. They should include a brief biography, a list of pertinent
publications, and information on any research collaborations for the
past 5 years.

Each individual involved in the proposed effort at more than 10% time
should provide, in a tabular format of the PI's choosing, a list of
current and pending support, including the current proposal. This list
should include the title of the investigation, the funding agency, the
duration, the dollar amount of support and the percentage of work
commitment to the project.

Personnel in addition to the PI may participate in the proposed effort
through the following mechanisms:

> *[Co-Investigator Subcontracts.]{.underline}* A budget, approved by
> the subcontracting institution, for each subcontract should be
> provided.
>
> *[Local Co-Investigators.]{.underline}* Individuals at the PI's
> institution may participate as either funded or unfunded
> co-investigators. The extent of involvement in the proposed effort,
> and the associated budget request, should be clearly spelled out.
>
> *[US Collaborators.]{.underline}* Individuals from any organization
> may participate as no-cost collaborators. The extent to which these
> individuals are involved in the proposed effort should be clearly
> specified.
>
> *Collaborators at Foreign Institutions.* Personnel who are employed at
> institutions that are not located in the United States may
> participate, but are ineligible to receive financial support under
> this opportunity.

A signed letter of commitment should be included with the proposal from
each individual listed as either a co-investigator or a collaborator.
This letter is to commit the individual to the proposed effort and to
acknowledge that their contribution will be used in the evaluation of
the proposal. The following wording is suggested:

"I acknowledge that I am identified by name as a \[co-investigator or
collaborator\] for the investigation entitled "......." that is
submitted to the High Energy Solar Physics Summer School Research
Announcement, and that I intend to carry out all responsibilities
identified for me in this proposal. I understand that the extent and
justification of my participation as stated in this proposal will be
considered during peer review in determining in part the merits of the
proposal."

**Proposal Submission**

Proposals should be submitted electronically as pdf files by 5 p.m. EDT
on Thursday, June 22, 2006. A total of 10 paper copies of the technical
section are also required for the review panels. Late proposals may be
accepted if deemed in the interests of the agency.

**Review Process**

Proposals will be reviewed on Friday, June 23, 2006, by a panel of
experts selected by the agency. Each panelist must demonstrate that they
have no conflict of interest (defined either as a direct financial stake
in the outcome of the submission or as a professional connection to the
PI).

**Announcement**

The results of this opportunity will be made available to the community
on Friday, June 23, 2006.

**ACTIVITY TIMELINE**

*[Wednesday, June 14, 9:00 a.m.]{.underline}*

Describe the nature of the project and determine number of participants.
Secure website created to receive proposal drafts.

*[Wednesday, June 14, 12:00 -- 1:00 p.m.]{.underline}*

Emslie to form teams of \~5 people each, with appropriate spread of
backgrounds. Website passwords assigned to teams.

*[Wednesday, June 14, 2:00 -- 3:00 p.m.]{.underline}*

Teams meet to discuss title of submissions. Appropriate faculty assigned
to lead teams.

*[Wednesday, June 14, 3:00 -- 5:00 p.m.]{.underline}*

Faculty facilitate general discussion of proposal and how to respond to
NRA; writing assignments made

*[Thursday, June 15 -- Friday, June 16]{.underline}*

Informal discussions amongst team members; early drafts written and
placed on website.

*[Saturday, June 17, 2:00 -- 5:00 pm.]{.underline}*

Teams discuss proposal and firm up writing assignments (note: Emslie
will not be present)

*[Sunday, June 18 -- Tuesday, June 20]{.underline}*

Informal team and sub-team meetings continue; proposal drafts refined.

*[Wednesday, June 21, 2:00 -- 5:30 p.m.]{.underline}*

Faculty-led sessions to prepare penultimate proposal drafts. Proposals
uploaded onto website.

*[Thursday, June 22, 2:00 -- 5:30 p.m.]{.underline}*

Preparation and upload of final proposals. Passwords distributed to
other teams to permit review of submitted proposals in preparation for
Friday's review process.

*[Friday, June 23, 2:00 -- 5:30 p.m.]{.underline}*

Each proposal reviewed by each other team (e.g. Team A reviews proposals
B, C, D; Team B reviews proposals A, C, D, etc.). Reviews occur in
separate rooms with faculty playing role of agency director. Faculty
collect reviews at end.

*[Friday, June 23, 5:30 -- 7:00 p.m.]{.underline}*

Faculty leaders meet over dinner to discuss overall rankings

*[Friday, June 23, 7:00 p.m. -- 8:30 p.m.]{.underline}*

After-dinner presentation by faculty leaders on strengths and weaknesses
of submitted proposals. General discussion.