NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

**********

GUIDEBOOK FOR PROPOSERS 

RESPONDING TO A

NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT (NRA) OR COOPERATIVE 

AGREEMENT NOTICE (CAN)

Edition: January 2010
January 2010

i

Changes from 2009 Version of the Guidebook 

The January 2009 edition of the Guidebook has been updated as follows:

Section 1.4.1 Categories of Proposing Organizations have been redefined.

Section 2.1 Clarification of fourth paragraph regarding registration in NSPIRES. 

Section 2.2 Revision of bullet regarding headers and footers. 

Section 2.3.9 Revision of example of statement on commitment. 

Section 2.3.9 Removal of the word "not" from the following sentence, "[U]nless 

otherwise specified in the NRA, however, statements of commitment should be 

acknowledged electronically through NSPIRES." 

Section 2.3.10 (a) The following sentence was deleted: "For the purpose of identifying 

work commitment only, a work year will be based on 1840 hours of productive effort --

this work commitment information should NOT change your use of your institution's 

standard financial practices for budget submittal purposes."

Section 2.3.10 (b) The “important note” was revised to read as follows: Important 

Note: All Recipients are reminded that in accordance with Section 1260.10(b)(1)(ii) of 

the Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook, “NASA is required to apply the 

applicable negotiated rate for all grants awarded to the recipient.” If fringe benefits 

comprise part of the applicable negotiated rate, NASA will use this rate for all grants and 

cooperative agreements awarded to the recipient. Recipients shall not escalate those 

rates for fringe benefits. If the applicable negotiated rate excludes fringe benefits, 

recipients may escalate their rates for fringe benefits. 

Section 2.3.10 (c)(v) The paragraph on unallowable costs has been revised to read as 

follows: Unallowable Costs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A21 (<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a021/a021.html>) (now codified 

at 2 CFR Part 220, http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/2cfr220_07.html), 

Circulars A-87 (<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a087/a087.html>) 

(now codified at 2 CFR Part 225, 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/2cfr225_07.html), A-122 

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a122/a122.html), (now codified at 2 

CFR Part 230, http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/2cfr230_07.html), and 

the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at 48 CFR Part 

31(https://www.acquisition.gov/far/05-09/html/FARTOCP31.html), identify and describe 

certain costs that may not be included in a proposed budget (unallowable costs). The 

use of appropriated funds for such purposes is unallowable and may lead to 

cancellation of the award and possible criminal charges. Grant recipients should be 
January 2010

ii

aware of cost principles applicable to their organization as set forth in the above 

regulations.

The following administrative changes were made throughout the document:

 a. “January 2009” was changed to read “January 2010.”

 b. Coverage of the guidebook now includes Cooperative Agreement Notices (CANs)

 c. Format changes have been made.

 d. URLs have been updated.

 e. Federal Financial Report (SF 425) replaces the Federal Cash Transaction Report 

(SF 272)
January 2010

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PREFACE

• Introduction to this Guidebook 

• Introduction to NASA’s Sponsored Research Programs 

• Statements of General Policy

• NASA World Wide Web (WWW) Home Pages

• Notification of Release of NASA Research Solicitations 

1. OVERVIEW OF THE NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT (NRA) 

1.1 General Background 

 1.1.1 Order of Precedence

 1.1.2 Award Instruments and Award Authority

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 Reserved 

1.4 Categories of Proposal Organizations and Personnel 

1.4.1 Proposing Organizations 

1.4.2 Proposal Personnel 

1.5 Successor Proposals 

1.6 Other Guidelines

 1.6.1 Proposals Involving Non-U.S. Organizations 

 1.6.2 Export Control

 1.6.2(a) Export Control Guidelines for Proposals Involving Foreign 

Participation

 1.6.2(b) Export Control Material in Proposals 

1.7 Guidelines for Proposal Preparation

2. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND ORGANIZATION

2.1 Overview 

 2.1.1 Using NSPIRES, the NASA Proposal Data System 

 2.1.2 Using Grants.gov

 2.1.3 Restriction on the use of Classified Material

2.2 Standard Proposal Style Formats 

2.3 Proposal Contents 

2.3.1 Overview of Proposal

2.3.1(a) Proposal Checklist

2.3.1(b) Assembly of Electronic Proposals

2.3.1(c) NASA Requirements for Uploaded PDF Files

2.3.2 Required Cover Pages and Forms

 2.3.2(a) NSPIRES Cover Page and Budget Form

 2.3.2(b) Grants.gov Required Forms

2.3.3 Proposal Summary (abstract)
January 2010

iv

2.3.4 Table of Contents 

2.3.5 Scientific/Technical/Management Section 

2.3.6 References and Citations

2.3.7 Biographical Sketch(s)

2.3.8 Current and Pending Support 

2.3.9 Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support 

2.3.10 Budget Justification: Narrative and Details

2.3.10(a) Required Budget Narrative

2.3.10(b) Required Budget Details 

2.3.10(c) Other Budget Guidelines

2.3.11 Special Notifications and/or Certifications

 2.3.11(a) Special Notifications and/or Certifications

 2.3.11(b) Proposals Involving Non-U.S. Organizations

2.3.12 Reprint(s)/Preprint(s)/Website(s)

3. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCEDURES

3.1 Notice of Intent (NOI) to Propose 

3.2 On-Time and Late Proposals

3.3 Submission of Proposals 

 3.3.1 Submission of Proposals Through NSPIRES

 3.3.2 Submission of Proposals Through Grants.gov 

3.4 Timeline for Review and Selection

3.5 Proposal Withdrawal by Proposer or Rejection Without Review by NASA

 3.5.1 Withdrawal by Proposer

 3.5.2 Proposal Rejection by NASA Without Review 
January 2010

v

APPENDICES 

A. GUIDE TO KEY DOCUMENTS ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB

B. INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS 

(NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Part 1852.235-72) (November 2004) as 

supplemented by paragraph (n) (January 2006).

C. PROPOSAL PROCESSING, REVIEW, AND SELECTION

C.1 Overview

C.2 Evaluation Criteria

C.3 Evaluation Processes 

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 Selections and Nonselections

C.6 Debriefing of Proposers

D. PROPOSAL AWARDS AND CONTINUED SUPPORT 

D.1 New Awards 

D.1.1 Awards to NASA Centers

D.1.2 Awards to Non-NASA Organizations

D.2 Requests for Augmentation Funding

D.3 No Cost Extensions 

D.4 Funding Continuation of Multiple Year Awards 

D.5 Completing an Award

E. CERTIFICATIONS AND SAMPLE AGREEMENTS

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 Conflicts of Interest for NASA Peer Reviewers

F. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

F.1 Who answers questions about an Award? 

F.2 Is all the information in this Guidebook needed to submit 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 include certain documents? 

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

F.9 What happens if the PI changes organizations? 

F.10 Who owns any equipment purchased through the award? 

F.11 Can an award be suspended or terminated? 
January 2010

vi

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 after selection? 

F.21 Who may be listed as participating personnel on a proposal?

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

research solicitations?

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

F.24 Why doesn’t NASA release the names of the reviewers who reviewed my proposal?

F.25 I can’t find the application forms in Grants.gov for the specific solicitation that I want to 

propose to; where are they?

F.26 How can a PI verify that his/her proposal has been properly submitted? 

F.27 Does NASA prefer special formatting for Education grants/cooperative agreements?

F.28 How is payment provided to commercial firms verses educational institutions and nonprofit

organizations? 

G. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

G.1 Requirement for Grant and Cooperative Agreement Awards

G.2 Requirement for Contract Awards

H. 

H.1 Ombudsman Review Process

PROCESS FOR APPEALS

H.2 Protest Process
January 2010

P-1

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION TO THIS GUIDEBOOK

This Guidebook describes the policies and procedures of the Broad Agency Announcement 

known as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Research Announcement 

(NRA) used by the program offices of NASA that solicit proposals for basic and applied science 

and technology research and for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

education. All Proposers who plan to respond to an NRA released by NASA should adhere to 

the guidelines contained in Chapters 1, 2, and 3, and the 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 Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) 1852.235-72 (ref. 

Appendix A for access information). 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. Appendix F contains frequently asked questions and answers concerning 

NRA proposal and administrative processes. Appendix G contains security requirements for 

grant and cooperative agreement awards and contract awards. Appendix H contains 

information on the Ombudsman review process and the protest process.

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

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. 

NASA has four Mission Directorates, each assigned responsibility for implementing the Vision 

for Space Exploration. The Mission Directorates are listed below:

• Science 

• Exploration Systems 

• Aeronautics Research 

• Space Operations

These Mission Directorates pursue NASA’s goals using a wide variety of ground-, aeronautical-, 

and space-based programs, and any of these may issue NRAs that will incorporate this 

Guidebook by formal reference. Examples of such programs are NASA’s human and robotic 

space missions to explore and study the planet Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe; 

NASA’s research using the Earth-orbiting Shuttle and International Space Station; and NASA’s 

ground- and space-based programs and facilities to conduct aeronautics research and develop 
January 2010

P-2

advanced space systems. Awards for research through these various programs fund thousands 

of scientists, engineers, and educators each year at U.S. nonprofit and commercial 

organizations, as well as Federal research organizations including NASA’s own Centers and the 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). 

Education is one of the Agency’s cross-cutting management strategies. NASA will continue the 

Agency’s tradition of investing in the Nation’s education programs and supporting the country’s 

educators who play a key role in preparing, inspiring, exciting, encouraging, and nurturing the 

young minds of today that will manage and lead the Nation’s laboratories and research centers 

of tomorrow. A highly educated and well-prepared workforce has been and continues to be 

critical to the success of the Agency’s mission. NASA’s investments in education are directly 

linked to one of three goals: Strengthen NASA and the Nation’s future workforce; attract and 

retain students in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering and mathematics); and 

engage Americans in NASA’s mission

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/education/performance/strategic_framework.html).

NASA’s Office of Education, in collaboration with the Mission Directorates, also issues NRAs 

that solicit projects that: 1) foster formal education goals (e.g., attract and retain students in 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines); 2) engage self-directed 

learners in NASA's mission; and/or 3) contribute to participation by minority organizations, small 

businesses, and small disadvantaged businesses across NASA education's full program 

portfolio (i.e., e-education, elementary and secondary education, higher education, and informal 

education). Further material about all of NASA’s many interests and programs may be found 

through links starting at the NASA homepage at http://www.nasa.gov/. 

STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY

NASA’s Partnership with the Research and Education Communities. Funding for NASA-related 

research and development projects is a privilege afforded to qualified science, engineering, and 

educational personnel by NASA acting on behalf of the citizens of the United States through 

Congressional and Executive 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 process. 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. NASA welcomes proposals in response to its research 

solicitations from all qualified sources, and especially encourages proposals from Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Other Minority Universities (OMUs), small 

disadvantaged businesses (SDBs), veteran-owned small businesses, service disabled veteranowned small businesses (SDVOSB), HUBZone small businesses, and women-owned small 

businesses (WOSBs). Proposers should consult FAR Part 19 for definitions of these business 

types. Reference the following URL for FAR Part 19: 

http://www.acqnet.gov/far/current/html/FARTOCP19.html. 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 
January 2010

P-3

assistance from NASA on the grounds of their race, color, creed, age, sex, national origin, or 

disability.

NASA WORLD WIDE WEB (WWW) HOME PAGES

NASA’s homepage on the World Wide Web may be found at http://www.nasa.gov/. NASA 

postings on the Internet may be searched through the NASA search engine found at: 

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nais/index.cgi. The Federal search engine for the acquisition 

community and the government's business partners can be found at: 

http://www.acquisition.gov/.

NOTIFICATION OF RELEASE OF NASA RESEARCH SOLICITATIONS

Grant Information Circular (GIC) 06-03 and Procurement Information Circular (PIC) 06-12 

require that all NASA Research Announcements (NRAs) and NASA Cooperative Agreement 

Notices (CANs) issued on or after October 1, 2006 that could result in the award of a grant or 

cooperative agreement be posted on NSPIRES. Links to open and recently closed NASA NRAs 

released by NASA may be accessed through the Web address for the NASA Solicitation and 

Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. 

Alternatively, the NASA Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) provides an inclusive, searchable 

database for all solicitations of every type released by the Agency by opening “Business 

Opportunities” from the menu at http://procurement.nasa.gov/. This listing will also include any 

NRAs that may be released by any of NASA’s Centers. Researchers may also find research 

grant opportunities offered by NASA and other Federal agencies on the Grants.Gov web site at 

http://www.grants.gov/. 
January 2010

1-1

1. OVERVIEW OF THE NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT (NRA)

1.1 General Background

In fulfillment of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended, 

(http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html), NASA endeavors to sponsor the 

highest quality research and development of the newest technologies related to the space and 

aeronautical sciences. NASA solicits proposals by issuing Broad Agency Announcements 

(BAAs) of several different types for the particular targeted objectives sought by each program. 

This Guidebook specifically discusses the policies and procedures of the BAA known as the 

NRA.

A key feature that distinguishes the research sponsored by NASA from that sponsored by other 

Federal agencies is that it must be relevant to NASA’s programs in addition to being of the 

highest intrinsic science and technical merit and affordable and realistic in cost. Proposals that 

respond to a specific NRA are called "solicited proposals." NASA receives and processes 

several thousand solicited proposals 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 proposals. Potential Proposers are urged 

to read this Guidebook carefully and to adhere to the requirements specific to each NRA of 

interest in order to submit a valid, responsive proposal.

In general, this Guidebook supplements the material given in its Appendix B, entitled 

"Instructions for Responding to NASA Research Announcements," which reproduces NASA 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) 1852.235-72 (ref. Appendix A for the 

World Wide Web access to the NFS). Where appropriate in this Guidebook, especially in 

Chapter 2, the cross reference to Appendix B is provided in brackets (e.g., [Ref.: Appendix B, 

Part (a)]). 

1.1.1 Order of precedence. In case of any conflict, the order of precedence to be 

followed is first, provisions of law; second, the NASA FAR Supplement; third, the specific 

requirements noted in the NRA itself; and lastly the direction provided in this Guidebook.

1.1.2 Award Instruments and Award Authority. The funding mechanisms used by NASA 

for research selected through an NRA are Interagency transfers, grants, cooperative 

agreements, contracts, and NASA’s own internal processes for funding activities at its Centers 

and JPL. For conciseness, the term "award” will be used hereafter in this Guidebook to mean 

any of these funding mechanisms, and, similarly, "Award Officer" will mean either a NASA Grant 

Officer or a NASA Contracting Officer. In all cases, only the Award Officer has binding authority 

to obligate Government funds allocated to a recipient. Ref. Appendix D for more details about 

both the definition and administration of research awards.

1.2 Overview Description of the Processes

1.2.1 Writing, Announcing, and Releasing an NRA

Regardless of their objectives, NRAs released by NASA that specifically incorporate 

this Guidebook by reference will be patterned on a standard format that, at a minimum, 

includes:
January 2010

1-2

• Overview Information 

• Executive Summary 

• Funding Opportunity Description

• Award Information

• Eligibility Information

• Application and Submission Information

• Application Review Information

• Award Administration Information 

• Reporting Requirements

• NASA Contacts

• Other Information

If the NRA anticipates the award of both contracts, and grants or cooperative 

agreements, the NRA must be synopsized in the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) at 

http://www.fedbizopps.gov at least 15 calendar days prior to release and in Grants.gov, located 

at http://www.Grants.gov, not later than three days after release. If an NRA expressly excludes 

the award of a contract as a funding instrument, the NRA is required only to be synopsized in 

Grants.Gov no later than three days after the release of the NRA. Although posting in the FBO 

is not legally required in the latter instance, the NRA may also be synopsized in the FBO as a 

method of publicizing the opportunity. As a service to the interested members of the science,

technical and educational research communities, some NASA program offices also provide 

direct notification of the intended release of their program announcements through Internetbased email notifications. Instructions for subscribing to email notifications can be found at the 

research opportunities website (ref. complete listing at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/). However, 

note that NASA is not responsible for inadvertently failing to provide notification of a future NRA. 

Interested parties are responsible for regularly checking these websites for updated NRAs. 

Finally, NRAs may also be accessed through the menu listing “Business Opportunities” of 

NASA's Acquisition Internet Service (NAIS) at http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nais/index.cgi. 

In all cases, a notice in any of these venues will always contain at least the following 

fundamental information:

• Title of program for which proposals are solicited;

• 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 (if applicable) and for proposals;

• Executive summary of announcement objectives; 

• A statement of the inclusiveness of eligibility applicants; and

• Name and contact information of the cognizant NASA Program Officer for further 

information.

All competitive solicitations issued on or after October 1, 2006, that could result in 

the award of a grant or cooperative agreement are required to be posted on the NASA 

Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) system. NASA 

NRAs may be found on their date of release at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. When possible, 

advance notices of future NRAs are found at the same location with a best estimate of the 

release date, though such advance postings are not guaranteed. Notification of NRAs may also 

appear in various professional publications that serve specific science disciplines, engineering 

fields, or educational areas and/or in a variety of commercial publications that report news 

concerning NASA’s programs. However, since such notifications may not appear until several 
January 2010

1-3

weeks after the actual release dates, those interested in NASA research opportunities are urged 

to subscribe to the relevant NASA email notification service(s), to check the relevant NASA 

home page(s), and/or to check the NAIS, FBO, and Grants.Gov Web sites. All other sources 

are unofficial and not necessarily complete or timely.

While NASA program personnel may 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.

1.2.2 Proposal Content and Submission

The proposal preparation and submission processes for all NRAs that specifically 

reference this Guidebook are given in Chapters 2 and 3. The requirements of this Guidebook 

shall be applicable unless specifically amended in the NRA itself. In order to be considered 

complete and, therefore, accepted for competitive review, proposals submitted in response to 

an NRA must conform to the instructions provided in the NRA. Compliance is required and will 

be enforced. NASA may reject without review proposals that are not consistent with the NRA 

instructions. Reference paragraph 1.11 for order of precedence in case of any conflict.

Most NASA NRAs require electronic submission of proposals. In some instances, 

however, instructions may require both an electronic submission and a paper copy submission, 

consisting of an original and a specific number of copies. In those instances all required 

submissions must be received at the designated address, time and date specified in the NRA 

(ref. Section 3.2 for the policy on late proposals). 

If an NRA requires only electronic submission of proposals, then the submission of a 

proposal by the authorized organizational representative (AOR) serves as the required original 

signature by an authorized official of the proposing organization. If, however, a paper copy 

submission is required, all proposal documents submitted shall be appropriately signed. 

1.2.3 Proposal Review and Selection

To be competitive for selection, proposals must fully satisfy the evaluation criteria as 

determined by peer review for scientific and/or technical merit, and by programmatic evaluation 

for cost and relevance by NASA (ref. further details in Appendix C). NASA peer review 

members may also participate in determining the relevance of a proposal to NASA program 

objectives and the realism and reasonableness of proposed costs as compared to the available 

budget. 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, affordable, and responsive to the advertised NASA program.

Following peer evaluation, the cognizant NRA Program Officer will consider the 

competitively rated proposals in the context of the programmatic objectives and financial 

limitations stated in the NRA. The Program Officer will present a recommendation for selection 
January 2010

1-4

based on the entirety of these factors to the NASA Selection Official identified in the NRA. The 

Selection Official will select proposals as judged against the evaluation criteria, the objectives of 

the NRA, programmatic considerations, and the available financial resources.

Following selection, each Proposer will be notified of the disposition of his/her 

proposal and, if desired, provided the opportunity to be debriefed. Those Proposers who are 

selected will be advised that their organizations will be contacted by the responsible NASA 

Procurement Office to initiate negotiations for an eventual award. It is important to note that, 

until an award is made, there is no guarantee that the recommended financial resources will be 

available. Funds are not in general available for awards at the time of an NRA’s release. The 

Government’s obligation to make awards is contingent upon the availability of sufficient 

appropriated funds from which payment can be made and the receipt of proposals that NASA 

determines are acceptable for award under the NRA. 

Note that awards are made to the proposing organization and not directly to the 

Principal Investigator. Appendix D provides ancillary information about how NASA typically 

implements and manages awards for the proposals selected through its NRAs. 

1.3 Reserved

1.4 Categories of Proposal Organizations and Personnel

1.4.1 Proposing Organization Type

NASA accepts proposals submitted in response to its NRAs by most types of U.S. 

and non-U.S. organizations acting on behalf of the Proposer(s). As an aid to NASA to determine 

the appropriate type of award to be used should a proposal be selected, designation of one of 

the following organizational categories is required on the Proposal Cover Page (ref. Section 

2.3.10(a) and D.1.2). The NSPIRES-standard cover page does not offer subcategory 

organization types, such as museum or public K-12 school. Some NRAs may request 

subcategory organization type using a program specific data form. Some NRAs may 

specifically disallow some or all of the following broad categories and/or may add sub categories 

not cited below.

The proposing organization type, as requested on the Proposal Cover Page, typically 

aligns to the proposing organization’s financial reporting identity as required by Federal law. 

Regardless of what proposing organization type is designated, any resulting award and its 

reporting requirements will be consistent with applicable NASA and Federal regulations.

• Education Organization (Limited to Higher Education Institutions) – A university, two- or 

four-year college (including U.S. community colleges) accredited to confer degrees beyond that 

of the K-12 grade levels. The NSPIRES coversheet excludes classifying non-higher education 

entities, such as K-12 education groups or institutions of informal education as Education 

Organizations. Education Organizations not providing higher education may be eligible to 

propose as non-profit or commercial organizations or as agencies of state, local, or Federallyrecognized tribal governments as described below. 

• Non-profit Organization – A non-profit organization is generally defined as any private 

corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization which:
January 2010

1-5

(1) is operated primarily for scientific, engineering, educational, research, or similar 

purposes in the public interest;

(2) is not organized primarily for profit;

(3) uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve, and/or expand its operations; and is

(4) an entity incorporated or unincorporated as a non-profit organization under Federal, 

state or local law.

Non-profit organizations NASA typically supports include: research laboratories, 

university consortiums, museums, planetariums, observatories, professional societies, or similar

organizations, such as entities providing or supporting K-12 education, or entities that directly 

support advanced research or education activities but whose principal charter is not for the 

training of students for advanced academic degrees. Non-profit organization generally excludes 

(i) colleges and universities; (ii) hospitals; and (iii) state, local and Federally recognized Indian 

tribal governments.

• Commercial Organization – An organization of any size that is organized primarily for 

profit. 

• NASA Center – Any NASA Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 

• Other Federal Agency – Any non-NASA, U.S. Federal executive agency or Federally 

Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) sponsored by a Federal executive 

agency. 

• Unaffiliated Individual – Any person (i.e., Sole Proprietorship) legally residing in the U.S.,

regardless of being a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, 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 – Organizations outside the U.S. that propose on the basis of a 

policy of no-exchange-of-funds; consult Section (l) of Appendix B for specific details. Some 

NRAs may be issued jointly with a non-U.S. organization (e.g., those concerning guest 

observing programs for jointly sponsored space science programs) that will contain additional 

special guidelines for non-U.S. participants. Also ref. Sections 2.3.10(c)(vii) for special 

instructions for proposals from non-U.S. organizations that involve U.S. personnel for whom 

NASA support is requested.

• State, Local, or Federally-Recognized Tribal Government Agency. – Examples of state, 

local or federally-recognized tribal government agencies that may apply to NRAs are individual 

public schools, school districts, museums; planetariums, visitor centers, etc. 

(1) “State’’ means any of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, or 

any agency or instrumentality of a State exclusive of local governments.

(2) “Local government’’ means a county, municipality, city, town, township, local public 

authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments 

(whether or not incorporated as a non-profit corporation under State law), any other 

regional or interstate government entity, or any agency or instrumentality of a local 

government. 
January 2010

1-6

(3) ‘‘Federally-recognized Indian tribal government’’ means the governing body or a 

governmental agency of any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 

community (including any native village as defined in Section 3 of the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act, 85 Stat. 688) certified by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible 

for the special programs and services provided through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

1.4.2 Proposal Personnel

Every person who is expected to play a significant role (i.e., PI, Co-PI, Co-I, 

Postdoctoral Assoc., Other Professional, Grad/Undergrad Students, Consultants, Collaborators)

in the execution of the proposed effort must be identified on the Proposal Cover Page, using 

one of the following seven categories of personnel. Each individual proposed must also identify 

the organization through which he/she is participating in the investigation, which may differ from 

his/her primary employer or preferred mailing address, in order to facilitate organizational 

conflict of interest checks that must be considered in the evaluation process. Any organization 

requesting NASA funds through participation in the proposed investigation must be listed for 

each team member on the Proposal Cover Page. NASA will not fund organizations that do not 

appear on the Proposal Cover Page. Other than the category of Principal Investigator, some 

NRAs may specifically disallow some or all of these categories and/or may add other 

categories.

• Principal Investigator (PI) – The Principal Investigator is(are) the individual(s) a research 

organization designates as having an appropriate level of authority and responsibility for the 

proper conduct of the research, including the appropriate use of funds and administrative 

requirements such as the submission of scientific progress reports to the agency. Every 

proposal shall identify a PI who is responsible for the quality and direction of the proposed 

research and for the proper use of awarded funds regardless of whether or not he/she receives 

support through the award. The proposing organization has the authority to designate the PI 

and to designate his/her replacement, if that becomes necessary. NASA approval is required for 

replacement of a PI after proposal selection. 

• Contact PI - To facilitate communication with NASA when proposing multiple PIs, the 

submitting organization must designate a “Contact PI” at the time of proposal. The 

Contact PI will be referred to as the “PI.” Any other PIs will be referred to as “Co-PIs.” 

The NASA grant officer and program officer will communicate with the Contact PI, 

and the Contact PI will be responsible for relaying communications between the CoPIs and NASA.

• Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) - When multiple PIs are proposed, the Co-Principal 

Investigator(s) share the responsibilities of the Principal Investigator.. 

NASA strongly encourages PIs to specify only the most critically important personnel to aid 

in the execution of their proposals. Such personnel must be designated as being in one of the 

following categories:

• Co-Investigator (Co-I) – 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 
January 2010

1-7

the award. Only an individual who has formally agreed to the role may participate as a Co-I 

even if his/her participation is at no cost (i.e., contributed) to the proposal. Each Co-I must 

demonstrate his/her commitment to participate in the proposed investigation by way of a brief, 

signed statement from him/her even if they are from the proposing organization (Section 2.3.9). 

The Scientific/Technical/Management Section of a proposal (ref. Section 2.3.5) may also 

designate that a Co-I carry additional responsibilities as appropriate for the following unique 

circumstances:

• One Co-I may also be designated as the "Science PI" for those cases where the 

proposing organization does not permit that individual to formally serve as a PI as 

defined above (e.g., nontenured faculty or postdoctoral personnel). In such a case, 

that Co-I/Science PI will be understood by NASA to be in charge of the scientific 

direction of the proposed work, although the formally designated PI will still be held 

responsible for the overall direction of the effort and use of funds.

• A Co-I at an organization other than that of the PI institution who is making a major 

contribution to the proposal (e.g., providing a significant piece of hardware) and who 

serves as the point of contact at that Co-I’s organization, may also be designated as 

the "Institutional PI" for that Co-I’s organization. If specifically stated in the NRA, 

NASA may elect to provide a separate award directly to the organization of the Co-I. 

In this case, the Co-I will serve as the "PI" for this separate award for his/her 

organization.

• A Co-I from a non-U.S. organization may also be designated as a “Co-Principal 

Investigator” (Co-PI) should such a designation be required to fulfill administrative 

requirements of that Co-I’s organization and/or to enable the procurement of funding 

by that Co-I from his/her sponsoring funding authority (ref. also Appendix B, Section 

(l)). 

• Postdoctoral Associate – A Postdoctoral Associate holds a Ph.D. or equivalent terminal 

degree, is usually employed full time at the proposing PI organization, is identified as a major 

participant (but not explicitly as a Co-I) for the execution of the proposed research, and is 

appropriately remunerated for that effort through the proposal’s budget. Such a Postdoctoral 

Associate should be identified by name, if known, by the time the proposal is submitted or may 

be identified only by designated function in those cases where recruitment depends on the 

successful selection of the proposal. Postdoctoral associates might not be named on the cover 

page, but their effort should be included in the technical description of work assignments, the 

budget, and budget justification. 

• Other Professional – 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– 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-Is. 

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. These students may not be listed on the Proposal Cover 

Page but they should be included in the technical description of work assignments, the budget, 
January 2010

1-8

and budget justification. Note: Direct support for undergraduate students’ tuition is normally 

allowed only if specifically stated in the NRA.

• Consultant – 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 complete breakdown of all costs proposed for all consultants (ref. Sections 

2.3.2 and 2.3.10).

• Collaborator – 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 contribution for a specific task. If 

funding support is requested in the proposal, such a person must be identified in one of the 

other categories above. For a proposal that is submitted via Grants.gov, collaborators should 

be listed on the Project Role “Other” line of the Senior/Key Person portion of the R&R 424 form. 

1.5 Successor Proposals [Ref.: Appendix B, Section (d)]

Holders of existing research awards frequently submit follow-on or “successor 

proposals” to successive NRAs that are issued for continued pursuit of the same NASA program 

objectives in order to extend an ongoing research activity to its next logical step. However, in 

order to ensure equitable treatment of all submitted proposals, NASA does not extend any 

special consideration to such successor proposals in terms of preferential handling, review, or 

priority for selection. Therefore, all proposals in response to an NRA are considered new

regardless of their previous history of NASA funding and will be reviewed on an equal basis with 

all other proposals submitted to the NRA.

Such proposals are welcomed and encouraged, and must describe relevant 

achievements made during the course of the previous award(s) in their Scientific/

Technical/Management Section (ref. Section 2.3.5). In addition, for Proposers using the 

NSPIRES electronic submission system, the Proposal Cover Page (ref. 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 a supplement/modification to the existing award. In either 

case, the starting date of a successor award will follow the expiration date of the preceding 

award (i.e., a successor award to the same PI at the same organization may not overlap the 

predecessor award). In order to distinguish the successor award from the predecessor award, 

Proposers should not use the same title for successor proposals as the title for the 

predecessor proposal. A change as simple as adding “Phase 2” is sufficient, though any 

different title is acceptable.

1.6 Other Guidelines

1.6.1. Proposals Involving Non-U.S. Organizations [Ref.: Appendix B, 

 Section (l)]

NASA welcomes proposals from non-U.S. organizations and proposals that include 

the participation of non-U.S. organizations. Foreign entities are generally not eligible for funding 

from NASA and should propose to participate on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. This policy 

also applies to research performed by non-U.S. organizations as part of a proposal submitted by 
January 2010

1-9

a U.S. organization. This policy pertains to the nature of the proposing organization, and the 

nationality or citizenship of the individuals listed in the proposal in accordance with Section 1.4 

is not relevant. For such proposals, it is critical that the proposal contains a certification that a 

sponsoring foreign government agency or foreign institution commits to bear the cost of the 

research proposed to be performed by the non-U.S. organization should the proposal be 

selected by NASA. Ref. Section (l) of Appendix B for more specific instructions on proposals 

involving non-U.S. organizations, and ref. Section 2.3.10(b)(vii) for details concerning the 

budgets of such proposals.

1.6.2 Export Control Information regarding U.S. export regulations is available 

at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ and at http://www.bis.doc.gov. 

1.6.2(a) Export-Control Guidelines for Proposals Involving Foreign Participation

The following important provision may apply to proposals that involve the 

participation of non-U.S. organizations, as well as proposals that involve personnel who are not 

U.S. citizens and do not have status as legally permanent U.S. residents.

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.pmddtc.state.gov and through the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 

Bureau of Industry and Security Web site at 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.”

Because of these legal provisions and requirements, Proposers and institutions 

whose proposals involve non-U.S. participants should be aware that such participation can add 

to management complexity and risk, and, therefore, Proposers should limit such cooperative 

arrangements to those offering significant benefits while maintaining the clearest and simplest 

possible technical and management interfaces.

1.6.2(b) Export-Controlled Material in Proposals

While explicit inclusion of export-controlled material in proposals is not prohibited, 

NASA is advising Proposers that, under U.S. law and regulations, spacecraft and their 
January 2010

1-10

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. Other items or information may be subject to the Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730 – 774. This may, in some circumstances, complicate 

NASA’s ability to evaluate the proposal, since occasionally NASA may use the services of 

foreign nationals who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents of the U.S. to 

review proposals submitted in response to this NRA. 

Proposers to NRAs are strongly encouraged not to include export-controlled material in their 

proposals, although the effort being proposed may itself be export controlled (ref. Web sites 

noted above in 1.6.2(a)). If it is essential to include any export-controlled information in a 

proposal, a notice to that effect must be prominently displayed on the first pages of the proposal 

and shall state: 

“The information (data) contained in [insert page numbers or other 

identification] of this proposal is (are) subject to U.S. export control laws 

and regulations. It is furnished to the Government with the understanding 

that it will not be exported without the prior approval of the Proposer under 

the terms of an applicable export license or technical assistance 

agreement.”

Reference the following URL for guidance on NASA’s Export Control Program and NASA 

Center Points of Contact:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oer/nasaecp/contacts.html

For the purposes of proposals submitted via NSPIRES or Grants.gov these first pages listing 

export-controlled information should precede the table of contents, do not count against the 

page limits, and may also be used to provide the proprietary notification, if applicable. Note that 

it is the responsibility of the Proposer to determine whether any proposal information is subject 

to export-control regulations. 

1.7 Guidelines for Proposal Preparation

NASA’s extensive experience in the review of proposals submitted in response to a wide variety 

of program solicitations 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.
January 2010

1-11

• 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).

• Proofread the proposal carefully before submission, and, if at all possible, ask a 

colleague to critically review it for completeness and comprehensibility; strive for a quality and 

clarity of text comparable to that for an article to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. 

• Keep the proposal as short as possible consistent with completeness and 

understandability; use legible fonts and illustrations and a clear, simple organization. When 

designing graphics, remember that readers may be color blind and choose non-color-dependent 

ways of conveying critical information. 

• Propose fresh, new ideas rather than slight modifications of proposals that may have 

been rejected in previous competitions. Simply revising a proposal to meet deficiencies 

identified in a previous review(s) does not 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. 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.

• Familiarize yourself with the proposal submission process and website well before the 

deadline. Adhere to all proposal deadlines and if possible submit proposals well in advance of 

the proposal submission deadline to minimize the affect of technical difficulties that may arise.
January 2010

2-1

2. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND ORGANIZATION 

2.1 Overview

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. Material contained in the Guidebook will not be repeated in the 

individual NRAs. Any deviations from the Guidebook will be clearly identified in the NRA, but 

will be introduced only if needed for the unique requirements of the program being solicited.

Entry by the PI of the data requested in the required electronic forms and attachment of the 

allowed PDF attachments, including the Scientific/Technical/Management section, must be 

followed by the electronic submission of the electronic proposal (forms plus attachments) by an 

official at the PI's organization who is authorized to make such a submission, referred to as the 

Authorizing Organizational Representative (AOR). Coordination between the PI and the AOR 

on the final editing and submission of the proposal materials is facilitated through their 

respective accounts in NSPIRES and/or Grants.gov. All information required by Appendix B, 

Part (c), is included in the NSPIRES Proposal Cover Page or the Grants.gov SF424(R&R) for 

electronic submittal. No separate transmittal letter is required. Ref. Section 2.3.1(c) for 

instructions on PDF file generation.

Proposers may opt to submit proposals via one of two different electronic proposal submission 

systems: either via NSPIRES, the NASA proposal data system (http://nspires.nasaprs.com), or 

via Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov). All proposals submitted through Grants.gov will be 

transferred to the NSPIRES system for evaluation by NASA. 

Because NASA uses NSPIRES both to evaluate proposals and to communicate the results of its 

evaluations, each and every proposer, including organizations who submit a proposal via 

Grants.gov and not via NSPIRES, must still register in NSPIRES. In order to register for 

NSPIRES, organizations are required to have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

number (http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform) and valid registration with the with the Central 

Contractor Registry (CCR) (https://www.bpn.gov/ccr/default.aspx). The CCR approval process 

can take several days (at minimum). CCR registration should be performed by an 

organization’s electronic business point-of-contact. Once the organization has a CCR record, 

the listed Organization Point of Contact registers as a user with NSPIRES, logs on, then begins 

the registration. NASA cannot evaluate proposals from proposers who submit a proposal via 

Grants.gov but fail to register the submitting organization in NSPIRES.

In addition, every individual named on the proposal’s electronic Proposal Cover Page form (ref. 

Section 2.3.2) or in the Grants.gov forms as a proposing team member in any role, including 

Co-Investigators and collaborators, must be registered in NSPIRES. Such individuals must 

perform this registration themselves; no one may register a second party, even the PI of a 

proposal in which that person is committed to participate. This data site is secure and all 

information entered is strictly for NASA’s use only.

Generically, an electronic proposal consists of one or more electronic forms, including an 

electronic cover page and a series of appendices/attachments. All attachments must be in 

unlocked, searchable PDF format unless specified otherwise in the NRA. One of the 

attachments is the Scientific/Technical/Management section of the proposal. Proposers must 

comply with any format requirements specified in this Guidebook and the NRA (ref. Section 2.3). 

Only appendices/attachments that are specifically requested in either this Guidebook or in the 
January 2010

2-2

NRA will be permitted or reviewed. Proposals containing unsolicited appendices/attachments 

may be declared noncompliant.

2.1.1 Using NSPIRES, the NASA Proposal Data System

Proposals may be submitted electronically via NASA’s master proposal database 

system, NSPIRES. Note that this database system has been changed from that used prior to 

2005. NSPIRES is accessed at http://nspires.nasaprs.com. Potential applicants are urged to 

access this site well in advance of the proposal due date(s) of interest to familiarize themselves 

with its structure and enter the requested identifier information. 

Because NASA requires that an organization (to include sole proprietorships) submit 

proposals, rather than a PI, potential Offerors should use the NSPIRES registration module to 

affiliate with an organization. Affiliation is a two-way relationship that requires the approval of 

the targeted organization. Organizations may take some time to respond to requests for 

affiliations. This may introduce extra time into the proposal preparation and submission cycle.

Tutorials, registration assistance, and other NSPIRES help topics may be accessed 

through the NSPIRES on-line help site at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/help.do. For any 

questions that cannot be resolved with the available on-line help menus, requests for assistance 

may be directed by email to nspires-help@nasaprs.com or by telephone to (202) 479-9376, 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

2.1.2 Using Grants.gov

In furtherance of the President's Management Agenda 

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf), NASA offers Proposers the option to 

use Grants.gov to prepare and submit proposals. Grants.gov allows organizations to 

electronically find and apply for competitive grant opportunities from all Federal grant-making 

agencies. It provides a single access point for over 1,000 grant programs offered by the 26 

Federal grant-making agencies. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is the 

managing partner for Grants.gov.

Potential applicants are urged to access the Grants.gov site well in advance of the 

proposal due date(s) of interest to familiarize themselves with its structure and download the 

appropriate application packages and tools.

All proposals submitted through Grants.gov will be transferred to the NSPIRES system 

for evaluation by NASA. To allow this, all individuals and organizations named in the proposal 

must be registered in NSPIRES. If multiple proposals with the same title and PI are submitted 

via Grants.gov, NASA will attempt to review and accept the version with the latest time and date 

stamp. However, it is the responsibility of the Proposer to withdraw old versions of their 

proposal. 

Instructions for the use of Grants.gov may be found in the Grants.gov User Guide at 

http://www.grants.gov/assets/ApplicantUserGuide.pdf. Instructions for NASA specific forms and 

NASA program-specific forms may be found in the application package and at 

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/Grants.gov. For any questions that cannot be resolved with the 

available on-line help menus and documentation, requests for assistance may be directed by 
January 2010

2-3

email to support@grants.gov or by telephone to (800) 518-4726. The Contact Center hours of 

operation are Monday-Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time. 

2.1.3 Restriction on the use of Classified Material

It is NASA policy that proposals should not contain security-classified material [Ref. 

Appendix B, Part (c)(9)]. However, should the project proposed approach 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

 Unless otherwise specified in the NRA of interest, the standard formats for all types of 

proposals submitted in response to NRAs are as listed below. Further, all proposals submitted 

electronically must be in the form of an unlocked, searchable PDF file that conforms to the 

following formats (as applicable, ref. Section 2.3.1(c ) for PDF file generation instructions).

• Single-spaced, typewritten, English-language text, formatted using one or two columns

(two column formatting is only allowed in hard-copy proposal submissions), and using an 

easily read font having no more than ~10 characters per inch (typically 12-point font). In 

addition, the text shall have no more than 5.5 lines per inch of text. Offerors should not use 

a smaller font or squeeze lines of text in order to gain more text per page as it makes the 

evaluation process difficult. Pages should have at least 1-inch (2.5 cm) margins on all 

sides.

• For electronically submitted proposals, text must be in a single column format. Multiplecolumn text is difficult to review electronically. Fonts must be embedded. 

• Units must be only metric and standard discipline-unique 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 provided as reference).

Use 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).

• Headers and footers are allowed as long as they do not contain proposal material. Only

non-proposal material, e.g., page numbers, section titles, disclaimers, etc., is permitted in 

headers and footers.

For electronically submitted proposals:

• All proposals submitted electronically must be in the form of an unlocked, searchable 

PDF file (ref. Section 2.3.1(c ) for PDF file generation instructions).

• There is a 10 Mbyte file size limit for each proposal; this limit applies to the combined 

size of all PDF files that are uploaded for a single proposal.

• The use of PDF bookmarks is encouraged, as it aids in electronic navigation of the 

file(s).

For hard copy proposals:
January 2010

2-4

• White 8.5 x 11-inch paper with at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) margins on all sides (Note: nonU.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);

In addition, proposals should not include references to sites on the World Wide Web for 

information or material needed to either complete or understand the proposal. Proposals must 

adhere to the page limits given in this Guidebook, unless otherwise specified in the NRA or 

preformatted in the Web-based forms, for all sections of the proposal (ref. Section 2.3). 

2.3 Proposal Contents 

2.3.1 Overview of Proposal 

2.3.1(a) Proposal Checklist

Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, a proposal should be assembled with the 

items given in the following table in the order shown, using the page limits provided herein. 

Proposals that omit required materials or that exceed the page limits may be rejected 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. 
January 2010

2-5

REQUIRED CONSTITUENT PARTS OF A PROPOSAL

(in order of assembly)

PAGE LIMIT

Proposal Cover Page

No page limit when generated by 

electronic proposal system

Proposal Summary (abstract)

4,000 characters, included in

Proposal Cover Page

Table of Contents 1

Scientific/Technical/Management Section 15*

References and Citations As needed

Biographical Sketches for:

the Principal Investigator(s) 2 (per PI)

each Co-Investigator 1

Current and Pending Support As needed

Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support As needed

Budget Justification: Narrative and Details

(including Proposing Organization Budget, itemized lists detailing expenses within major 

budget categories, and detailed subcontract/subaward budgets)

Budget Narrative As needed

(including Summary of Proposal Personnel 1

and Work Effort and Facilities and Equipment) 2

Budget Details As needed

Special Notifications and/or Certifications As needed

______________________________________________________________________

* includes all illustrations, tables, and figures, where each "n-page" fold-out counts as n-pages 

and each side of a sheet containing text or an illustration counts as a page. Note: This page 

limit may be superseded by instructions in the NRA. 
January 2010

2-6

2.3.1(b) Assembly of Electronic Proposals 

For proposals submitted electronically, the Scientific/Technical/ Management 

Section and other required sections of the proposal are submitted as one or more unlocked, 

searchable PDF files that are attached to the electronic submission using one of the proposal 

submission systems. All allowed appendices and attachments must be submitted in the PDF 

file(s) that are attached to the electronic submission. Note that required and permitted 

appendices may be included either in the PDF file containing the 

Scientific/Technical/Management Section or as separate PDF files attached to the electronic 

submission, but not both. Including any part of the proposal twice creates an additional burden 

on the peer reviewers. It is recommended that, where practical, Proposers assemble their 

proposal into a single PDF file themselves.

Forms submitted in any other format may not be accepted and may not be 

forwarded for peer review. Proposals may be declared noncompliant if they are not submitted in 

the required PDF format. 

Sections of proposals transferred from Grants.gov to NSPIRES may appear in a 

slightly different order. This will be considered compliant as long as all of the required forms 

and documents were originally submitted to Grants.gov. 

2.3.1(c) NASA Requirements for Uploaded PDF Files

It is essential that all PDF files generated and submitted meet NASA 

requirements. This will ensure that the submitted files can be ingested by NSPIRES regardless 

of whether the proposal is submitted via NSPIRES or Grants.gov. This will also ensure that 

proposals can be read by community reviewers and NASA program officers using a wide variety 

of computers, operating systems, and PDF readers. At a minimum, it is the responsibility of the 

Proposer to ensure: (1) that all PDF files are unlocked and that edit permission is enabled—this 

is necessary to allow NSPIRES to concatenate submitted files into a single PDF document for 

review, (2) that all fonts are embedded in the PDF file, and (3) that only Type 1 or 

TrueType fonts are used. In addition, any Proposer who creates files using TeX or LaTeX is 

required to first create a DVI file and then convert the DVI file to Postscript and then to PDF. All 

Proposers are encouraged to ref. http://nspires.nasaprs.com/tutorials/PDF_Guidelines.pdf for 

more information on creating PDF documents that are compliant with NSPIRES. PDF files that 

do not meet NASA requirements cannot be ingested by the NSPIRES system; such files may be 

declared noncompliant and not submitted to peer review for evaluation.

The file size limit for proposals submitted electronically to NASA through either 

NSPIRES or Grants.gov is 10 Mbyte. This limit applies to the combined size of all files that are 

uploaded for a single proposal. Note that large file sizes can impact the time it takes for NASA 

and peer reviewers to download and access your proposal. In order to increase the ease in 

reviewing your proposal, you should crop and compress any embedded photos and graphic files 

to an appropriate size and resolution. Most electronically submitted proposals will be 1-2 Mbyte 

in size.

It is the responsibility of each applicant to verify the accuracy and completeness 

of his/her proposal, including all text, figures, tables, and required forms. NSPIRES allows 

applicants to verify prior to submission that all information contained in proposal PDF file(s) 

being provided to NSPIRES is complete and accurate. Well in advance of the proposal due 

date, the applicant should use the “Generate” the “Complete Proposal” (found on the “View 
January 2010

2-7

Proposal” page within NSPIRES) to review the file they have generated in NSPIRES to ensure 

that all text, figures, tables, and required forms are complete and accurate. The applicant must 

immediately call the NSPIRES Help Desk prior to proposal submission for assistance with any 

proposal that is not complete and correct.

NOTE: Proposers should ensure that their proposals are submitted prior to the 

due date even if they fail to generate their proposal. This feature is optional and, if done, should 

be started well before the submittal deadline to allow adequate time to process the proposal 

document and to allow time to resolve any problems that might be encountered. 

2.3.2 Required Cover Pages and Forms [Ref.: Appendix B, Part (c)(1) & (c)(3)]

 2.3.2(a) NSPIRES Cover Page and Budget Form

Proposals submitted electronically through NSPIRES will use the NSPIRES 

Proposal Cover Page that is available through the World Wide Web at 

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. Access for application to a given NRA is provided through a menu 

entitled “Solicitations” then accessing the link “Open Solicitations.” Once completed by the PI, 

the Proposal Cover Page must be accessed in the NSPIRES system and submitted 

electronically by the AOR. 

If a hard copy submittal is also required, the submitted cover page should then 

be printed and signed by the AOR. As directed in the solicitation, the signed copy must be 

submitted with the original copy of the proposal on or before the proposal due date. In addition, 

reproductions of the signed Proposal Cover Page are used to preface the required printed 

copies of the proposal. 

NSPIRES automatically assigns a unique proposal number to each proposal only 

after it has been successfully submitted. NASA uses this NSPIRES number throughout the 

proposal review and selection process to uniquely identify the proposal and its associated 

electronic data. If no NSPIRES number appears on the Proposal Cover Page, then it has not 

been properly submitted through the NSPIRES system.

2.3.2(b) Grants.gov Required Forms

For proposals submitted via Grants.gov, Offerors must complete the required 

Grants.gov forms including the SF424 (R&R) Application for Federal Assistance, R&R Other 

Project Information, R&R Senior/Key Person Profile, and R&R Budget. In addition, Offerors 

must complete the required NASA-specific forms: NASA Other Project Information, NASA 

Principal Investigator and Authorized Representative Supplemental Data Sheet, NASA 

Senior/Key Person Supplemental Data Sheet (this form is required only if there are Senior/Key 

Persons other than the Principal Investigator). Instructions for completing these forms are on the 

Grants.gov Web site. All team members, including the PI and any listed in the Senior/Key 

Persons Data Sheet, must be registered in NSPIRES, even if the proposal is submitted via 

Grants.gov (ref. Section 2.1).

Finally, there may be NASA program-specific forms that are required for the 

specific NRA. Program-specific forms may be found by clicking on the hyperlink in the NASA 

Other Project Information form or by directly accessing http://nspires.nasaprs.com/grants.gov/. 

Directions for accessing and submitting program-specific forms, if there are any, are provided in 

the NASA Other Project Information form. Further instructions on submitting proposals via 
January 2010

2-8

Grants.gov may be found in Section 3.3.2 and at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/Grants.gov. If 

Proposers who do not submit the required NASA- and program-specific forms (as listed above), 

proposals may be rejected for noncompliance.

2.3.3 Proposal Summary (abstract)

Both electronic submittal systems require the PI to prepare a Proposal Summary. 

The Proposal Summary should provide an overview of the proposed investigation that is 

suitable for release through a publicly accessible archive should the proposal be selected. The 

proposal summary (or abstract) should be concise, should not exceed 4000 characters in 

length, and should not contain any special characters or formatting. Note that, while Grants.gov 

does not impose a limit on the length of the proposal summary, it will be truncated when the 

proposal is transmitted from Grants.gov to NASA. Grants.gov users must use a writeable pdf 

form (downloadable from grants.gov) named ProposalSummary.pdf. This form restricts the 

Proposal Summary document to 4000 characters or less.

2.3.4 Table of Contents

Offerors should include a one-page Table of Contents that provides a guide to the 

organization and contents of the proposal. This item may also incorporate customized formats 

of the Proposer’s own choosing, e.g., identification of the submitting organization through use of 

letterhead stationary, project logos, etc. The electronic system chosen may provide some 

assistance in preparing the Table of Contents, but Proposers are responsible for the accuracy of 

proposals submitted.

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 specified otherwise in the NRA, the limit 

is 15 pages using the default values given in Section 2.3.1: 

• The objectives and expected significance of the proposed research, especially as related 

to the objectives given in the NRA; 

• The technical approach and methodology to be employed in conducting the proposed 

research, including a description of any hardware proposed to be built in order to carry out the 

research, as well as any special facilities of the proposing organization(s) and/or capabilities of 

the Proposer(s) that would be used for carrying out the work. (Note: ref. also Section 2.3.10(a) 

concerning the description of critical existing equipment needed for carrying out the proposed 

research and the Instructions for the Budget Justification in Section 2.3.10 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; 
January 2010

2-9

• 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. 

• To facilitate data sharing where appropriate, as part of their technical proposal, the 

Proposer shall provide a data-sharing plan and shall provide evidence (if any) of any past datasharing practices.

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 Biographical Sketch(s) [Ref.: Appendix B: Part (c)(6)]

The PI (and Co-PI) must include a biographical sketch (not to exceed two pages) 

that includes his/her professional experiences and positions and a bibliography of recent 

publications, especially those relevant to the proposed investigation. A one-page sketch for 

each Co-Investigator must also be included (Note: Any Co-I also serving in one of the three 

special Co-I categories defined in Section 1.4.2 may use the same two-page limit as for the PI). 

For the PI and any Co-Is who are required to provide Current and Pending Support information 

(ref. Section 2.3.8), the biographical sketch must include a description of scientific, technical 

and management performance on relevant prior research efforts. Those participants who will 

play critical management or technical roles in the proposed investigation should demonstrate 

that their qualifications, capabilities, and experience are appropriate to provide confidence that 

the proposed objectives will be achieved.

2.3.8 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 required for any Co-Is who are proposed to 

perform a significant share (>10 percent) of the proposed work. 

All current project support from whatever source (e.g., Federal, State, local or foreign 

government agencies, public or private foundations, industrial or other commercial 

organizations) must be listed. This information must also be provided for all pending proposals 

already submitted or submitted concurrently to other possible sponsors. Do not include the 
January 2010

2-10

current proposal on the list of pending proposals unless it has been submitted to another 

possible sponsor.

All projects or activities requiring a portion of the investigators’ time during the period 

of the proposed effort must be included, even if they receive no salary support from the 

project(s). The total award amount for the entire award period covered (including indirect costs) 

must be shown, as well as the number of person-months per year to be devoted to the project 

for each year, regardless of source of support. 

Specifically, for the PI and any Co-Is who are proposed to perform a significant share 

(>10%) of the proposed work, provide the following information:

• Title of award or project title;

• Name of PI on award;

• Program name (if appropriate) and sponsoring agency or organization, including 

a point of contact with his/her telephone number and email address;

• Performance period;

• Total budget; and 

• Commitment by PI or Co-I in terms of person-months per year for each 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 any 

time after the proposal due date and until the time that NASA’s selections are announced.

2.3.9 Statements of Commitment and Letters of Support

Every Co-PI, Co-I, and Collaborator (ref. definitions in Section 1.4.2) identified as a 

participant on the proposal’s cover page and/or in the proposal’s

Scientific/Technical/Management Section must acknowledge his/her intended participation in 

the proposed effort. 

 The NSPIRES proposal management system allows for participants named on the 

Proposal Cover Page to acknowledge a statement of commitment electronically. Unless 

otherwise specified in the NRA, statements of commitment should be acknowledged 

electronically through NSPIRES.

 The Summary of Solicitation for an NRA may specify that signed statements of 

commitment must be included within the proposal. Also, any proposals submitted via 

Grants.gov must include signed statements of commitment in the proposal. In the case of more 

than one Co-PI, Co-I or Collaborator at the same institution, 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 email (the latter must have sufficient 

information to unambiguously identify the sender), and is required even if the Co-PI, Co-I or 

Collaborator is from the proposing organization. An example of such a statement follows:

 "I (we) acknowledge that I (we) am (are) identified by name as Co-Principal 

Investigator(s), 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 
January 2010

2-11

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. I (we) have read the entire proposal, including the 

management plan and budget, and I (we) agree that the proposal correctly describes my (our) 

commitment to the proposed investigation.” For the purposes of conducting work for this 

investigation, my participating organization is <<insert name of organization>>.”

In addition, a letter of support is required from the owner of any facility or resource 

that is not under the PI’s direct control, acknowledging that the facility or resource is available 

for the proposed use during the proposed period. For Government facilities, the availability of 

the facility to users is often stated in the facilities documentation or web page. Where the 

availability is not publicly stated, or where the proposed use goes beyond the publicly stated 

availability, a statement, signed by the appropriate Government official at the facility verifying 

that it will be available for the required effort, is sufficient. 

Letters of support do not include “letters of affirmation” (i.e., letters that endorse the 

value or merit of a proposal). NASA neither solicits nor evaluates such endorsements for 

proposals. The value of a proposal is determined by peer review. If endorsements are 

submitted, they may not be submitted as an appendix. They must be included as part of the 

proposal and must be included within the required page limitations even though they will not be 

considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

2.3.10 Budget Justification: Narrative and Details [Ref.: Appendix B, Part (c)(8)]

Each proposal shall provide a budget justification for each year of the proposed effort 

and shall be supported by appropriate narrative material and budget details in compliance with 

the following instructions.

Failure to adequately provide detailed cost data will require NASA Procurement 

Personnel to contact the proposing organization for the required information. This will result in a 

delay of the award. All Proposers are required to submit a thoroughly detailed cost breakdown. 

NASA Procurement Personnel must be able to determine that all proposed costs are allowable 

and reasonable. A detailed budget will facilitate this cost analysis. Reference Section A, 

Appendix A of the Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook located at the following URL:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/index.html.

2.3.10(a) Required Budget Narrative (Including Personnel and Work Effort and 

Facilities and Equipment)

The Budget Narrative should clearly state the type of award instrument the 

Recipient anticipates receiving if selected for award (i.e., contract, grant or cooperative 

agreement). NASA will, however, make the final decision on the award instrument used

(reference D.1.2).

The Budget Narrative must describe the basis of estimate and rationale for each 

proposed component of cost, including direct labor, subcontracts/subawards, consultants, other 

direct costs (including travel), and facilities and equipment. The Proposer must provide 

adequate budget detail to support estimates. The Proposer must state the source of cost 

estimates (e.g., based on quote, on previous purchases for same or similar item(s), cost data 

obtained from internet research, etc.) including the company name and/or URL and date if 
January 2010

2-12

known, but need not include the actual price quote or screen captures from the web. The 

Proposer must describe in detail the purpose of any proposed travel in relation to the grant and 

provide the basis of estimate, including information or assumptions on destination, number of 

travelers, number of days, conference fees, air fare, per diem, miscellaneous expenses, etc. If 

destinations are not known, the Proposer should, for estimating purposes, make reasonable 

assumptions about the potential destination and use historical cost data based on previous trips 

taken or conferences attended. 

A required element of the Budget Narrative is a table of Personnel and Work Effort, 

summarizing the work effort required to perform the proposed investigation. The table must 

have the names and/or titles of all personnel necessary to perform the proposed effort, 

regardless of whether those individuals require funding. For each individual, list the planned 

work commitment per period in fractions of a work year. Where names are not known, include 

the position, such as postdoc or technician. 

The final element of the Budget Narrative is a description of any required facilities 

and equipment. This section should describe any existing facilities and equipment that are 

required for the proposed investigation. It must explain the need for items costing more than 

$5,000 and describe the basis for estimated cost (i.e., competitive quotes were obtained, 

justification for sole source purchase, proposed cost based on previous purchases for same or 

similar item(s), cost data obtained from internet research, etc.). 

General-purpose equipment (i.e., personal computers and/or commercial software) is 

not allowable as a direct cost unless specifically approved by the NASA Award Officer. Any 

general-purpose equipment purchase requested to be made as a direct charge under this award 

must include the equipment description, an explanation of how it will be used in the conduct of 

the research proposed, and a written certification that the equipment will be used exclusively for 

the proposed research activities and not for general business or administrative purposes. [Ref.: 

Appendix B, Part (c)(7)]. The need for general-purpose items that typically can be used for 

research and non-research purposes should be explained. 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. 

Proposed costs for purchased facilities, tooling, or equipment must be entered in the 

Proposal Cover Page and included in the Budget Details (ref. Section 2.3.10(b)). Proposals 

submitted via Grants.gov should include a single Facilities and Equipment section as a separate 

PDF document; it should be uploaded to the Grants.gov application as the “Facilities and Other 

Resources” document. “Equipment” document should not be uploaded to Grants.gov.

There should be direct and obvious correlation between the items described in 

the Budget Narrative, those given in the Budget Details, and the figures entered in the 

Proposal Cover Page/Grants.gov forms.

2.3.10 (b) Required Budget Details

In addition to the Budget Narrative, Proposers are required to include detailed 

budgets, including detailed subcontract/subaward budgets, in a format of their own choosing.

Regardless of format chosen, the following information must be included in the Budget Details..

1. Direct Labor (salaries, wages, and fringe benefits): List the number and titles of 

personnel, amounts of time to be devoted to the grant (level of effort for each position), 
January 2010

2-13

and rates of pay. The annual salary should be clearly noted for each position. Labor 

should be clearly broken out from fringe benefits. The fringe benefit rate/percent should 

be clearly noted on the budget for each labor category for ease of review. 

Important Note: All Recipients are reminded that in accordance with Section 

1260.10(b)(1)(ii) of the Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook, “NASA is required 

to apply the applicable negotiated rate for all grants awarded to the recipient.” If fringe 

benefits comprise part of the applicable negotiated rate, NASA will use this rate for all 

grants and cooperative agreements awarded to the recipient. Recipients shall not 

escalate those rates for fringe benefits. If the applicable negotiated rate excludes fringe 

benefits, recipients may escalate their rates for fringe benefits. 

2. Other Direct Costs: 

a. Subcontracts/Subawards: Attachments shall describe the work to be 

subcontracted/subawarded, estimated amount, recipient (if known), and the 

reason for subcontracting (e.g., uniquely qualified co-investigator is located at 

another institution from the proposing institution). Itemized budgets are required 

for all subcontracts/subawards, regardless of dollar value. Reference Section 

1260.33, Subcontracts, and Section 1260.144, Procurement Procedures, 

paragraph (e) of the Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook for additional 

requirements/documentation for subcontractors.

b. Consultants: Identify consultants to be used and provide the amount of time they 

will spend on the project and rates of pay to include annual salary, overhead, 

etc. 

c. Equipment: List all facilities and equipment items separately. General-purpose 

equipment (i.e., personal computers and/or commercial software) valued at or 

above $5,000 is not allowable as a direct cost unless specifically approved by 

the NASA Award Officer. Any requested general-purpose equipment purchase 

valued at or above $5,000 to be made as a direct charge under this award must 

include the equipment description, an explanation of how it will be used in the 

conduct of the research proposed, and a written certification that the equipment 

will be used exclusively for the proposed research activities and not for general 

business or administrative purposes. [Ref.: Appendix B, Part (c)(7)]. 

d. Supplies: Provide general categories of needed supplies, the method of 

acquisition, and the estimated cost.

e. Travel: Provide a detailed breakout of costs for any proposed travel. Detailed 

budget data shall include the following: 

- Number of people and number of days

- Departure/Arrival cities

- Airfare

- Per diem

- Car rental

- Conference fees (if applicable)

- Miscellaneous Costs (i.e., car rental fuel, airport parking, tolls, etc.). 

Note: Every effort should be made to accurately estimate and detail travel costs. 

Under Federal procurement regulations, missing or minimum data is not acceptable for 

budget evaluation and award purposes. If destinations are not known at time of 

proposal preparation, then reasonable assumptions about the potential destination and 

historical data for previous trips may be used but the preparer is still required to include 
January 2010

2-14

the same amount of detail listed above. That is, use reasonable assumptions and 

historical data for destinations and length of stay, however, use current pricing for the 

applicable categories listed above. If adequate budget detail is not submitted with the 

proposal then this will delay your award. 

f. Other: List and enter the total of direct costs not covered by 2a through 2e. 

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 approved audited rates are not available, provide the computational 

basis for the indirect expense pool and the corresponding allocation base for 

each proposed rate. 

Reference Important Note in paragraph 2.3.10(b)1. above: All budgets shall be 

prepared using the most current “approved” indirect rates for estimating and award 

purposes. Proposers shall not use unapproved “future” rates. Failure to do so will 

cause a delay in receiving your award as the NASA Procurement Office will then have to 

come back to the Proposer with a request to reduce the proposed rates to the most 

current “approved” rates. Proposers may charge less than the approved current rates 

but shall not propose more in anticipation of the rates changing in the future. 

4. Other Applicable Costs: Enter total explaining the need for each item and itemized lists 

detailing expenses within major budget categories. Also enter here the required funding 

for any Co-Is who cannot be funded through the PI award (e.g. because the PI is at a 

non-Government organization and a Co-I is at a U.S. Government organization) (see 

Section 2.3.10(c)(ii)(a)).

5. Subtotal-Estimated Costs: Enter the sum of items 1 through 4.

Less: Proposed Cost Sharing (if any): Neither NSPIRES nor Grants.gov allows for 

notating cost sharing on the standardized budget form. However, if cost sharing is 

proposed, it should be discussed in detail in the Budget Narrative. Further, if cost 

sharing is based on specific cost items, identify each item and amount in the Budget 

Detail with a full explanation provided in the Budget Narrative. 

If an institution of higher education, hospital, or other non-profit organization wants to 

receive a grant or cooperative agreement, cost sharing is not required. The award 

would be made in accordance with the requirements of Subparts A and B of the Grant 

and Cooperative Agreement Handbook. Subparts A and B are also applicable to NASA 

grants and cooperative agreements awarded to commercial firms which do not involve 

cost sharing. This does not prohibit voluntary cost sharing. NASA may accept cost 

sharing from any type of organization if it is voluntarily offered. Reference 1260.123

(Cost Sharing or Matching) and Section 1260.4 (Applicability) of the Grant and 

Cooperative Agreement Handbook. If a commercial organization wants to receive a 

grant or cooperative agreement, cost sharing is required unless the commercial 

organization can demonstrate that it does not expect to receive substantial 

compensating benefits for performance of the work. If this demonstration is made, cost 

sharing is not required but may be offered voluntarily. Reference also the Grant and 

Cooperative Agreement Handbook Section D, Provision 1274.204 (Costs and 

Payments), paragraph (b), Cost Sharing.
January 2010

2-15

Cost sharing is not required when a commercial organization receives a contract, but it 

may be offered voluntarily. 

6. Total Estimated Costs: Enter the total amount of funding requested from the 

Government. 

2.3.10(c) Other Budget Guidelines

In preparing the Budget Justification (both Narrative and Details), Proposers 

must consider the following additional important NASA procurement policies:

(i) Purchase of Personal Computers and/or Software. Note the discussion of item "2.c. 

Equipment" on the Instructions above regarding the proposed purchase of personal computers 

and/or commercial software at or above $5,000. Such items are usually considered by NASA to 

be general purpose equipment that must be purchased from general, organizational overhead 

budgets and not directly from the proposal budget unless it can be demonstrated that such 

items are to be used uniquely and only for the proposed research. If a proposal is selected for 

award, failure to adequately address the requirements of the instructions for item 2.c above 

(Equipment) will require that NASA contact the proposing organization for the required 

information. Such activity may delay the award until the purchase is justified as a direct charge 

for general-purpose equipment to be used exclusively for the proposed research activities. 

(ii) Joint Proposals Involving a Mix of U.S. Government and Non-Government 

Organizations.

(a) If a PI from any type of private or public organization proposes to team with a 

Co-I from and/or use a facility at a U.S. Government organization (including NASA Centers and 

the Jet Propulsion Laboratory), the budget for the proposal must include all funding requested 

from NASA for the proposed investigation, and this must be reflected in the budget totals that 

appear in the budget forms (e.g., Proposal Cover Page, Grants.gov forms, Budget Details). Any 

required budget for that Government Co-I and/or facility should be included in the proposal’s 

Budget Narrative and should be listed as "Other Applicable Costs" in the required Budget 

Details. If the proposal is selected, NASA will execute an inter- or intra-Agency transfer of 

funds, as appropriate, to cover the applicable costs at that Government organization.

The required cost for any Government Co-I and/or facility should be entered in the 

“Other” line(s) on the NSPIRES or Grants.gov budget entry form in the “Other Direct Costs” 

section. This cost must be included in the total cost of the proposed work. No indirect burden 

should be applied to this amount. NASA will transfer funds, as appropriate, to cover applicable 

costs for the Government Co-I and/or facility. Reference 2.3.10(c)(iv) below – Full-Cost 

Accounting at NASA Centers.

(b) If a PI from a U.S. Government organization (including NASA Centers and the 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory) proposes to team with a Co-I from a non-Government organization, 

then the proposing Government organization must cover those Co-I costs through an 

appropriate award for which that Government PI organization is responsible. Such nonGovernment Co-I costs should be entered as a "Subcontract/Subaward" on the Budget 

Summary.

(c) If a PI from a non-U.S. organization proposes to team with a Co-I from a U.S. 

organization then reference part (vii) below.
January 2010

2-16

(iii) Responsibility of the Proposing Organization to Place Subawards for Co-Is at Other 

Organizations. Other than the special cases discussed in item (ii) above, and unless specifically 

noted otherwise in the NRA, the proposing PI organization must subcontract the funding of all 

proposed Co-Is who reside at other non-Government organizations, even though this may result 

in a higher proposal cost because of subcontracting fees.

(iv) Full-Cost Accounting at NASA Centers. Regardless of whether functioning as a team 

lead or as a team member, personnel from NASA Centers must propose budgets based on fullcost accounting. Proposal budgets from NASA Centers must include all costs that will be paid 

out of the resulting award. Costs which will not be paid out of the resulting award, but are paid 

from a separate NASA budget (e.g., Center Management and Operations, CM&O) and are not 

based on the success of this specific award, should not be included in the proposal budget. For 

example, CM&O should not be included in the proposal budget while direct civil service labor, 

travel, service pools, and other charges to the proposed research task should be included. 

(v) Unallowable Costs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-21 

(<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a021/a021.html>) (now codified at 2 CFR 

Part 220, http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/2cfr220_07.html), A-87 

(<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a087/a087.html>) (now codified at 2 CFR 

Part 225, http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/2cfr225_07.html), A-122 

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a122/a122.html), (now codified at 2 CFR Part 

230, http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/2cfr230_07.html), and the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) at 48 CFR Part 31(https://www.acquisition.gov/far/05-

09/html/FARTOCP31.html), identify and describe certain costs that may not be included in a 

proposed budget (unallowable costs). The use of appropriated funds for such purposes is 

unallowable and may lead to cancellation of the award and possible criminal charges. Grant 

recipients should be aware of cost principles applicable to their organization as set forth in the 

above regulations.

(vi) Prohibition of the Use of NASA Funds for Non-U.S. Research. NASA’s policy 

welcomes the opportunity to conduct research with non-U.S. organizations on a cooperative, 

no-exchange-of-funds basis. Although Co-Is or collaborators employed by non-U.S. 

organizations may be identified as part of a proposal submitted by a U.S. organization, NASA 

funding may not normally be used to support research efforts by non-U.S. organizations at any 

level. However, the direct purchase of supplies and/or services that do not constitute research 

from non-U.S. sources by U.S. award recipients is permitted. Ref. Section (l) of Appendix B. 

Also reference paragraph (c)(8)(iv) of Appendix B which states in part, “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.”

(vii) Proposals from non-U.S. PI organizations that propose the funding of U.S. Co-Is. A 

proposal submitted by a non-U.S. organization that involves U.S. Co-Is for whom NASA funding 

is requested must provide the budgets for those U.S. Co-Is in compliance with all applicable 

provisions in this Section 2.3.10. The budget should identify the U.S. Co-I organization to which 

funding will be awarded. In addition, compliance is required by the proposing non-U.S. 

organization with the provisions of Section (l) of Appendix B.

2.3.11 Special Notifications and/or Certifications 
January 2010

2-17

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

2.3.11(a) Special Notifications and/or Certifications

Some NRAs may require proposals to include special notifications or 

certifications regarding the impact of research including, e.g., environmental, human, or animal 

care provisions, conflicts of interest, or other topics as may be required by statute, Executive 

Order, or Government policies. Compliance with such requirements is important to ensure 

submission of a complete proposal, and such items must be included in the Special Notifications 

and/or Certifications section of the proposal. 

2.3.11(b) Proposals Involving Non-U.S. Organizations

If the proposal involves the conduct of research by a non-U.S. organization, 

appropriately signed letter(s) of certification must be included that verifies that their support will 

be provided by a responsible organization(s) or government agency(ies) should the proposal be 

selected by NASA.

2.3.12 Reprint(s)/Preprint(s)/Website(s)

Reprints and/or preprints are not permitted to be appended to a proposal unless they 

are accommodated within the proposal page limit. Proposals shall not rely upon material posted 

on a website. All information and material necessary for an informed peer review of the 

proposal must be included within the proposal in a manner that is compliant with the proposal 

page limit and permitted appendices. References to unpublished manuscripts should be 

avoided. Any information required to evaluate the proposal must be included within the 

proposal. If a proposal requires referenced material (not included within the proposal page limit) 

in order to be evaluated, this information will not be examined and the proposal may be judged 

noncompliant.
January 2010

3-1

3. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCEDURES

3.1 Notice of Intent (NOI) to Propose

The information provided in the NOI is of considerable value to both the Proposer and NASA 

because it is used to help expedite the proposal-review activities. Material in an NOI is 

confidential and will be used for NASA planning purposes only. NOIs must be submitted via

NSPIRES even when the intent is to submit the proposal via Grants.gov. Grants.gov does not 

support NOI submittal. Offerors must be registered with NSPIRES to create and submit an NOI. 

An NOI is submitted by logging into NSPIRES at http://nspires.nasaprs.com and then clicking on 

the “Proposals” link. Space is provided for the applicant to provide, at a minimum, the following 

information, although additional special requests may also be indicated:

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

• A Full Title of the anticipated proposal (which should not exceed 254 characters and is of 

a nature that is understandable by a scientifically trained person);

• A brief description of the primary research area(s) and objective(s) of the anticipated 

investigation (Note: the information in this item does not constrain in any way the Proposal 

Summary that must be submitted with the final proposal); and

• The names of any Co-Investigators and/or Collaborators as may be known by the time 

the NOI is submitted. In order to enter such names, such team members must have previously 

accessed and registered in NSPIRES themselves; a PI cannot do this for them. After 

completing the indicated fields, the NOI is then submitted electronically. 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 email directly to the program officer identified in 

the NRA. 

3.2 On-Time and Late Proposals 

Each NRA will prominently list the deadline for proposal submission in the NRA’s prefatory 

Summary of Solicitation. For an electronically submitted proposal, the organization’s AOR must 

submit the proposal, with all required attachments, prior to midnight (11:59 pm) Eastern Time on 

the proposal due date as specified in the NRA’s Summary of Solicitation. 

If paper copy proposals are required, the 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 satisfy the requirement for on-time delivery of a 

proposal. Delivery to any address by any method other than the one specified in the NRA may 

result in the proposal being declared late . NASA does not accept proposals sent by collect 
January 2010

3-2

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 the 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. The 

decision to submit a late proposal is solely 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 [Ref. Appendix B, Part (g), Late 

Proposals]. 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. 

Proposers should note that Grants.gov does not support the receipt of late proposals.

3.3 Submission of Proposals 

If the solicitation expressly states that only authenticated electronic proposals (electronically 

authorized by the AOR) are to be submitted, and all required attachments are submitted 

electronically with a complete cover page by the submission due date, then the proposal will be 

considered complete. Electronic submission of only the Proposal Cover Page or SF 424 (R&R) 

does not satisfy the deadline for proposal submission. Because of the individual requirements of 

each electronic submission system, Proposers are encouraged to begin their submission 

process early. Proposers are solely responsible for ensuring their proposals are received by 

NASA before the deadline.

When hard-copy submission is required, the required number of copies of the proposal (as 

specified in the NRA), including an original signed by the AOR, must be received by the 

submission due date. The address for the delivery of hard-copy proposals, if required, including 

a telephone number and point-of-contact for commercial delivery, is given in the Summary of 

Solicitation of each NRA. 

If both electronic and hard copy submission are required, the Offeror must submit the required 

number of copies of the proposal (as specified in the NRA), along with the original signature of 

the AOR on the printed Proposal Cover Page, to the address specified in the NRA by the 

submission due date. Ref. Section 3.3.1 below for further instructions on printed copies of the 

Proposal Cover Page. 

Proposals may be submitted only by AORs. In instances where an individual acts as both the 

PI and the AOR, the individual must take separate action for both roles to ensure that proposals 

are properly submitted. 

3.3.1 Submission of Proposals through NSPIRES

All proposals submitted via NSPIRES include a required electronic Proposal Cover 

Page form that is accessed at http://nspires.nasaprs.com. This form is comprised of several 

distinct sections: a Cover Page that contains the identifier information for the proposing 

institution and personnel; a Proposal Summary that provides an overview of the proposed 

investigation that is suitable for release through a publicly accessible archive should the 

proposal be selected; and the Proposal Cover Page Budget Summary of the proposed research 

effort (ref. Section 2.3). In general, this Cover Page form is available for access and submission 
January 2010

3-3

starting about 90 days in advance of the proposal due date and remains open until the proposal 

due date for each program. 

The required elements of the proposal, including the Scientific/Technical/ 

Management Section and required appendices, must be assembled by the Proposer and 

submitted as a single searchable PDF document that is attached to the Proposal Cover Page

using the tools in NSPIRES (ref. Sections 2.2 and 2.3.1(c)). Specific NRAs will, however, 

specify when additional files are required. NSPIRES will provide a list of all elements that make 

up an electronic proposal, and the system will conduct an element check to identify any item(s) 

that is (are) apparently missing or incomplete. Reference Note below regarding element 

validation check. 

The AOR must submit the proposal; the PI may not submit the proposal unless he/she is 

an AOR. If the PI is an AOR, he/she must take the separate action of submitting the proposal as 

the AOR. Uploading the proposal and releasing it to the AOR do not constitute submission to 

NASA, even if the PI is the AOR.

The NRA may require the Offeror to submit one or more hard copies of the proposal 

in addition to electronic submission. In this case, the Offeror must print out the NSPIRES 

Proposal Cover Page (with the NSPIRES-assigned proposal number, ref. Section 2.3.2 above) 

and submit it as part of each proposal hard copy. The “original” proposal must include a copy of 

the Proposal Cover Page signed by the AOR. 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 the Web site, after which the revised 

Proposal Cover Page is then printed for purposes of securing the necessary signatures. For 

this reason, it is recommended that this item be produced from the specified Web site well in 

advance of the proposal due date.

Note: Element validation check. NASA has made a change to the NSPIRES proposal 

submission process to ensure that a minimum set of required proposal cover page fields are 

completed. Provision of the proposal summary and business data elements of the cover page 

will be necessary in order for the AOR to submit the proposal to NASA. If either of these two 

proposal elements is not completed, the "View Proposal/ Check Elements" function of NSPIRES 

will display red "error" flags and messages to alert the user to the information that is required 

but missing, and the "Submit Proposal" button will not be available. Although the PI will be able 

to release the proposal to the AOR, the proposal cannot be submitted by the AOR to NASA until 

these required fields are complete. Any additional information that is missing will be identified 

by yellow "warning" flags. In addition, Proposers are reminded to check the solicitation 

instructions to ensure compliance with all instructions, as adherence to these two element 

validation checks alone is insufficient to guarantee a compliant proposal. Additionally, in those 

cases where instruction(s) in the NRA contradicts an NSPIRES warning, the NSPIRES warning 

may be ignored. Proposers should follow NRA instructions closely to help ensure submission of 

a compliant proposal (ref. Section 1.1.1 – Order of Precedence).

Proposers may contact the NSPIRES help desk by email at nspires-help@nasaprs.com, 

or by calling, Monday thru Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time at (202) 479-9376 to 

verify successful submission of proposals. The NASA Program Officer identified in the NRA 

may also be contacted. Proposers may also see that the proposal is correctly submitted by 

noting that the proposal record has ‘moved’ from the “Current Proposals/NOIs” section of the 

PI’s NSPIRES account to the “Submitted Proposals/NOIs” section. NSPIRES will send an email 
January 2010

3-4

to both the AOR and the PI notifying them of successful submission of the proposal within 

minutes of that action.

3.3.2 Submission of Proposals through Grants.gov

Information regarding steps to take to submit proposals through Grants.gov is 

located at http://www.Grants.gov. Proposers are reminded that in order to submit applications 

on Grants.gov, the AOR must complete a one-time registration process. The registration 

process can take three to five days depending on the organization. Registration checklists are 

also provided at the Grants.gov website. Note that all organizations and individuals named in 

the proposal must be registered in NSPIRES, even if the proposal is submitted via Grants.gov, 

to facilitate identification of conflicts of interest and review of the proposal.

In order to submit a proposal via Grants.gov, the Principal Investigator must 

download an application package from Grants.gov. Identifying the appropriate application 

package requires using the “Find Grant Opportunities” function within Grants.gov and/or using 

the funding opportunity number for that program. The funding opportunity number may be 

found in the NRA. For omnibus NRAs, such as ROSES or ROA, each program element will 

have a separate funding opportunity number.

Proposals submitted via Grants.gov must be submitted by the AOR.

Submitting a proposal via Grants.gov requires the following steps:

• Proposers must still register in NSPIRES even if they submit their proposal through 

Grants.gov (otherwise proposals cannot be ingested into NSPIRES for review and 

selection).

• Grant researchers (PIs) do NOT need to register with Grants.gov. To find solicitations, 

ref. "Find Grant Opportunities" at http://www.grants.gov/GetStarted. Using a Basic 

Search, enter the Funding Opportunity Number to retrieve the application package all 

NASA application packages may be found by searching on CFDA Number 00.000. 

• Download and install any required Grants.gov software applications or tools.

• Download the application package from Grants.gov at http://www.grants.gov.

• Complete the required Grants.gov forms including the SF424 (R&R) Application for 

Federal Assistance, R&R Other Project Information, R&R Senior/Key Person Profile, and 

R&R Budget.

• Complete the required NASA-specific forms: NASA Other Project Information, NASA 

Principal Investigator and Authorized Representative Supplemental Data Sheet, NASA 

Senior/Key Person Supplemental Data Sheet (this form is only required if there are 

Senior/Key Persons other than the Principal Investigator), and proposal summary form. 

Detailed instructions for completing NASA-specific forms can be found at 

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/Grants.gov.

• Complete any NASA program-specific form that is required for the specific program 

element. This form, which is required by many NRAs including all ROSES program 

element submissions, is included as a PDF form within the proposal application package 

downloaded from Grants.gov. The form, once completed, is attached to the NASA Other 

Project Information form.
January 2010

3-5

• Create a proposal in PDF including the Science/Technical/Management section and all 

other required sections. Attach the proposal and any allowed appendices/attachments 

(also in PDF) to the appropriate Grants.gov form(s).

• Submit the proposal via the authorized organization representative (AOR); the PI may 

not submit the application to Grants.gov unless he/she is an AOR.

If Proposers need assistance with the application process and the submission of 

their proposals through Grants.gov, they can contact Grants.gov by email at 

support@grants.gov or they can call the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726. The 

Contact Center hours of operation are Monday-Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time. 

3.4 Timeline for Review and Selection

NASA is committed to announcing selections and initiating awards as quickly as 

possible, consistent with ensuring the quality of the selection and award process and subject to 

the appropriation of Federal funds for the initiation of new research awards.

Selections are typically announced between 150 days and 220 days after the proposal 

due date for proposals. Although there are many reasons why selections are not announced 

earlier, the most common are the uncertainty in the NASA budget at the time selection decisions 

could be made and the time required to conduct an appropriate peer review and selection 

process. NASA does not usually announce new selections until the funds needed for those 

awards are approved through the Federal budget process. Therefore, a delay in the budget 

process for NASA usually results in a delay of the selection date(s). 

The initiation of the award itself typically occurs between 45 and 90 days after the 

selection announcement depending on the extent of negotiations required. Therefore, a request 

for the commencement of funding sooner than about 250 days after the proposal due date is 

unlikely to be accommodated. A proposal submitted in response to an NRA that is timesensitive (e.g., to take advantage of a unique natural phenomena or programmatic event) may 

be rejected if, in the opinion of the cognizant Program Officer, there is insufficient time for its 

review and processing. 

3.5 Proposal Withdrawal by Proposer or Rejection without Review by NASA [Ref.: Appendix B, 

Part (h)]

3.5.1 Withdrawal by Proposer

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. Proposals submitted using NSPIRES may be withdrawn electronically by the 

AOR at any time.

3.5.2 Proposal Rejected by NASA Without Review

NASA reserves the right to reject a proposal without review for the following reasons: 

• The proposal is clearly nonresponsive to the objectives and/or provisions of the NRA;

• The proposal does not meet the requirements for proposal format, content, and

organization as specified in this Guidebook and/or the NRA itself;
January 2010

3-6

• The Offeror fails to deliver the hard copy (if required) to the specified delivery address by 

the proposal due date; 

• The Offeror fails to submit the electronic proposal by the submission due date; 

• The Offeror submits a proposal to Grants.gov but fails to register in NSPIRES; and/or

• Proposals for time-sensitive investigations are submitted with insufficient lead time to 

allow NASA adequate time for proposal review, selection, funding and awarding the proposed 

effort (Ref. Section 3.4 above – Timeline for Review and Selection). 
January 2010

A-1

APPENDIX A

GUIDE TO KEY DOCUMENTS ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB

• Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) or 

Cooperatve Agreement Notice (CAN):

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/. 

• NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) 

can be found at the following URL: http://nspires.nasaprs.com

• Find NASA research grant award information at the following URL: 

http://www.research.gov

• The following URL can be used to track the process of a grant and/or cooperative 

agreement prepared by the NASA Shared Services Center (NSSC) on behalf of one of 

the NASA Centers/HQ: https://www.nssc.nasa.gov/grantstatus

• Find the NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS) Library at the following 

URL: http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov

• NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS): 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm. 

Key parts of particular relevance to this Guidebook are:

"Unsolicited proposals"

"Broad Agency Announcements"

NFS 1815.6

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/:

• The NASA Strategic Plan: http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html

• The Vision for Space Exploration:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/main/index.html

• Links to all NASA Headquarters Mission Directorates: 

http://www.nasa.gov/about/org_index.html
January 2010

A-2

• Links to all NASA Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory: 

http://www.nasa.gov/about/org_index.html

• A list of current Business Opportunities with NASA:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/nais/index.cgi

• Guidance for the Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited Proposals: 

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/index.html

• Grant And Cooperative Agreement Handbook, NPR 5800.1: 

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/index.html

• Federal Acquisition Regulation: http://acquisition.gov/far/index.html

• The following OMB Circulars may be found at the following URL: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/index.html 

"Cost Principles for Educational Institutions" OMB Circular A-21

“Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian 

Tribal Governments"

"Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants 

and Agreements with Institutions of Higher 

Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit 

Organizations"

OMB Circular A-87

OMB Circular A-110

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

"Audits of States, Local Government And NonProfit Organizations”OMB Circular A-133
January 2010

B-1

APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO NASA RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS

(NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Part 1852.235-72) (NOVEMBER 2004) as 

supplemented by Paragraph (n) (January 2006)

 (a) General.

 (1) Proposals received in response to a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) will be 

used only for evaluation purposes. NASA does not allow a proposal, the contents of which are 

not available without restriction from another source, or any unique ideas submitted in response 

to an NRA to be used as the basis of a solicitation or in negotiation with other organizations, nor 

is a pre-award synopsis published for individual proposals. 

 (2) A solicited proposal that results in a NASA award becomes part of the record of that 

transaction and may be available to the public on specific request; however, information or 

material that NASA and the awardee mutually agree to be of a privileged nature will be held in 

confidence to the extent permitted by law, including the Freedom of Information Act. 

 (3) NRAs contain programmatic information and certain requirements which apply only 

to proposals prepared in response to that particular announcement. These instructions contain 

the general proposal preparation information which applies to responses to all NRAs. 

 (4) A contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement may be used to 

accomplish an effort funded in response to an NRA. NASA will determine the appropriate award 

instrument. Contracts resulting from NRAs are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and 

the NASA FAR Supplement. Any resultant grants or cooperative agreements will be awarded 

and administered in accordance with the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook 

(NPR 5800.1). 

 (5) NASA does not have mandatory forms or formats for responses to NRAs; however, 

it is requested that proposals conform to the guidelines in these instructions. NASA may accept 

proposals without discussion; hence, proposals should initially be as complete as possible and 

be submitted on the Proposers' most favorable terms. 

 (6) To be considered for award, a submission must, at a minimum, present a specific 

project within the areas delineated by the NRA; contain sufficient technical and cost information 

to permit a meaningful evaluation; be signed by an official authorized to legally bind the 

submitting organization; not merely offer to perform standard services or to just provide 

computer facilities or services; and not significantly duplicate a more specific current or pending 

NASA solicitation. 

 (b) NRA-Specific Items. Several proposal submission items appear in the NRA itself: the 

unique NRA identifier; when to submit proposals; where to send proposals; number of copies 

required; and sources for more information. Items included in these instructions may be 

supplemented by the NRA. 

 (c) The following information is needed to permit consideration in an objective manner. 

NRAs will generally specify topics for which additional information or greater detail is desirable. 

Each proposal copy shall contain all submitted material, including a copy of the transmittal letter 

if it contains substantive information. 

 (1) Transmittal Letter or Prefatory Material.

 (i) The legal name and address of the organization and specific division or campus 

identification if part of a larger organization; 

 (ii) A brief, scientifically valid project title intelligible to a scientifically literate reader 

and suitable for use in the public press; 

 (iii) Type of organization: e.g., profit, nonprofit, educational, small business, minority, 

women-owned, etc.; 

 (iv) Name and telephone number of the principal investigator and business 
January 2010

B-2

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]

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. 
January 2010

B-3

 (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 is 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 non-professional personnel). Estimate all staffing 

data in terms of staff-months or fractions of full-time. 

 (ii) Explanatory notes should accompany the cost proposal to provide 

identification and estimated cost of major capital equipment items to be acquired; 

purpose and estimated number and lengths of trips planned; basis for indirect cost 

computation (including date of most recent negotiation and cognizant agency); and 

clarification of other items in the cost proposal that are not self-evident. List estimated 

expenses as yearly requirements by major work phases. 

 (iii) Allowable costs are governed by FAR Part 31 and the NASA FAR 

Supplement Part 1831 (and OMB Circulars A-21 for educational institutions and A-122 

for nonprofit organizations).

 (iv) Use of NASA funds--NASA funding may not be used for foreign 

research efforts at any level, whether as a collaborator or a subcontract. The direct 

purchase of supplies and/or services, which do not constitute research, from non-U.S. 

sources by U.S. award recipients is permitted. Additionally, in accordance with the 

National Space Transportation Policy, use of a non-U.S. manufactured launch vehicle is 

permitted only on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. 
January 2010

B-4

 (9) Security. Proposals should not contain security classified material. If the 

research requires access to or may generate security classified information, the 

submitter will be required to comply with Government security regulations. 

 (10) Current Support. For other current projects being conducted by the principal 

investigator, provide title of project, sponsoring agency, and ending date. 

 (11) Special Matters.

 (i) Include any required statements of environmental impact of the research, 

human subject or animal care provisions, conflict of interest, or on such other topics as 

may be required by the nature of the effort and current statutes, executive orders, or 

other current Government-wide guidelines.

 (ii) Identify and discuss risk factors and issues throughout the proposal 

where they are relevant, and your approach to managing these risks.

 (iii) Proposers should include a brief description of the organization, its 

facilities, and previous work experience in the field of the proposal. Identify the cognizant 

Government audit agency, inspection agency, and administrative contracting officer, 

when applicable.

 (iv) To facilitate data sharing where appropriate, as part of their technical 

proposal, the Proposer shall provide a data-sharing plan and shall provide evidence (if 

any) of any past data-sharing practices.

 (d) Renewal Proposals. 

 (1) Renewal proposals for existing awards will be considered in the same manner as 

proposals for new endeavors. A renewal proposal should not repeat all of the information that 

was in the original proposal. The renewal proposal should refer to its predecessor, update the 

parts that are no longer current, and indicate what elements of the research are expected to be 

covered during the period for which support is desired. A description of any significant findings 

since the most recent progress report should be included. The renewal proposal should treat, in 

reasonable detail, the plans for the next period, contain a cost estimate, and otherwise adhere 

to these instructions. 

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

new award. 

 (e) Length. Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, effort should be made to keep proposals 

as brief as possible, concentrating on substantive material. Few proposals need exceed 15-20 

pages. Necessary detailed information, such as reprints, should be included as attachments. A 

complete set of attachments is necessary for each copy of the proposal. As proposals are not 

returned, avoid use of "one-of-a-kind" attachments.

 (f) Joint Proposals. 

 (1) Where multiple organizations are involved, the proposal may be submitted by only 

one of them. It should clearly describe the role to be played by the other organizations and 

indicate the legal and managerial arrangements contemplated. In other instances, simultaneous 

submission of related proposals from each organization might be appropriate, in which case 

parallel awards would be made. 

 (2) Where a project of a cooperative nature with NASA is contemplated, describe the 

contributions expected from any participating NASA investigator and agency facilities or 

equipment which may be required. The proposal must be confined only to that which the 

proposing organization can commit itself. "Joint" proposals which specify the internal 

arrangements NASA will actually make are not acceptable as a means of establishing an 

agency commitment. 

 (g) Late Proposals. Proposals or proposal modifications received after the latest date 

specified for receipt may be considered if a significant reduction in cost to the Government is 
January 2010

B-5

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-ofthe-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 individual reviewers or through assembled panels. The final 

decisions are made by a NASA Selection 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 Selection Official who will arrange a debriefing. 

 (2) When a proposal is selected for award, negotiation and award will be handled by the

appropriate procurement office. 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 
January 2010

B-6

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-exchangeof-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.

 (n) Instructions noted above are further supplemented as follows:

(1) Section (c): Proposers shall ensure that each proposal contains all submitted 

material. Unless it is included in each proposal copy, the optional transmittal letter should not 

contain substantive information.

(2) Paragraph (c)(1): Proposers shall consider the information as “Required Prefatory 

Information.” The information may be included in the proposal cover page. If this information is 

included in a transmittal letter, then the transmittal letter must be included in each proposal 

copy. 

 (3) Paragraph (c)(3): The title is further defined as “The Proposal Summary or 

Abstract.” Further, Proposers must ensure that he proposal summary or abstract is suitable for 

public release.

(4) Paragraph (c)(8)(i): Proposers may submit the cost and technical parts in separate 

volumes if required by the NRA.

(5) Paragraph (c )(8)(ii): Proposers shall also provide explanatory notes for the 

description and justification of major subcontracts/subawards.

(6) Section (d), Paragraph (d)(1): The term “Renewal Proposal” is further defined as 

“Successor Proposal”. Proposers shall also include in their proposal a description of any 

significant findings of the predecessor effort.

(7) Section (i): The term “Evaluation Factors” includes factors evaluated by peer 

reviewand factors evaluated by NASA program personnel. 

(End of provision)
January 2010

C-1

APPENDIX C

PROPOSAL PROCESSING, REVIEW, AND SELECTION

C.1 Overview

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 or Web-site 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, 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 (ref.

list of potential conflicts of interest in Appendix E.3). Also, all non-Government reviewers are 

prohibited from making unauthorized disclosure of proposal information and evaluation 

materials and/or information (ref. the sample Nondisclosure Agreement in Section E.2, 

Appendix E). Government employees who may be involved in the peer review process are 

bound by Government law and regulation not to make unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets 

and confidential commercial and financial information contained in proposals. 

Proposers are provided with explanations for the final decisions regarding their 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 submission of its Proposal Cover Page by the Proposer, each proposal is 

given a unique identifier (proposal number) that is maintained throughout the entire process. A 

log of all proposals received is provided to the cognizant NASA Program Officer within three 

working days if the number of proposals received is less than 250; within five working days if the 

number of proposals received is more than 250. 

• The Program Officer selects panel and/or individual 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 (ref. also next 

section below). 

• Whether the review is conducted by individual reviewers or by 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 accept the Nondisclosure Agreement

before they are allowed to review any proposals (ref. Section E.2 in Appendix E) and must 

identify any conflicts of interest (ref. Appendix E.3). U. S. Government reviewers also follow a 

thorough process to ensure that a financial conflict of interest does not exist. Proposal titles 
January 2010

C-2

may be revealed to potential viewers who ultimately decline to act as reviewers because of 

conflict or lack of knowledge. 

• 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 employee (including those who may be serving under the auspices of an 

Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) appointment). The peer reviewers may also be asked to 

comment on the perceived programmatic relevancy and cost realism of the proposals. 

• A recommendation for selection or nonselection of each proposal is developed by the 

cognizant Program Officer and presented to the Selection 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 

Selection Official. 

• After selection, each Proposer is notified by letter or electronic mail of the disposition of 

his/her proposal. Sometimes this communication may also transmit an anonymous copy of the 

proposal’s peer review. In any case, the Proposer may request a debriefing from NASA, 

identifying strengths and weaknesses. A debriefing may be accomplished by sending the peer 

reviews by mail to the Proposer and/or by oral communication. 

• NASA also notifies Members of Congress of awards to any of their constituents. 

Following notification of Proposers and of Congress, a list of selected proposals is posted at 

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. In addition to the proposal title, PI, and proposing organization, the 

proposal summary may also be posted. (Ref. NASA FAR Supplement 1805.3)

• Official notification of selection for the solicitation is then forwarded by the Program 

Officer to a NASA Award Office that will contact the proposing organization to negotiate funding 

through an appropriate award instrument (ref. further in Appendix D).

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

The evaluation criteria in Appendix B, Part (i), amended below, will apply to all NRAs released 

by NASA, unless otherwise stated in the individual NRA. Evaluation factors include factors 

evaluated by peer review as well as factors evaluated by NASA program personnel.

Unless otherwise specified in the NRA, the evaluation criteria (of approximately equal weight) 

considered in evaluating a proposal are its relevance to NASA's objectives, intrinsic merit 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.

(1) 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. If a solicitation includes a specific description of how it is 

relevant to NASA strategy documents, it is not necessary for individual proposals to show 

relevance to NASA’s broader goals and objectives. The proposal only needs to demonstrate 
January 2010

C-3

relevance by discussing how the proposed investigation addresses the goals and objectives 

of the specific program element.

(2) 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) Evaluation against the state-of-the-art. Review panels are instructed not to compare 

proposals to each other; all comparative evaluations are conducted by NASA program 

personnel.

(3) 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. Review panels evaluate cost realism and reasonableness; however, 

comparison of the proposed cost to available funds is performed by NASA program 

personnel.

Note that the NRA itself provides the focused, program-specific objectives that will define 

precisely what is meant by the term “relevance” in item (1) above. The evaluation forms that are 

provided to both individual 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 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 [Ref.: Appendix B, Part (j)] 

As a matter of both policy and practice, proposals submitted to NASA are principally 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 individual reviews 

solicited by the Program Officer that are made available to the panel reviewers once they 

convene. In some circumstances, NASA may elect to evaluate proposals using only individual 

reviews. As a general rule, and as based on its deliberations, a peer panel is authorized to 

wholly or partially accept or reject any such individual 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 a meeting of the complete panel group. There are generally at least 

three 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 proposal evaluation 

determined by the panel is reviewed and approved for completeness and clarity by the attending 

NASA Program Officer and, if appropriate, the chairperson of the panel. 
January 2010

C-4

The number and significance of strengths and weaknesses for a proposal determines its final 

summary evaluation based on the following adjectival scale. 

Summary

Evaluation

Basis for

Summary Evaluation

Relationship of

Summary Evaluation to

Potential for Selection

Excellent

A thorough, and compelling 

proposal of exceptional merit that 

fully responds to the objectives of 

the NRA as documented by 

numerous or significant strengths 

and with no major weaknesses.

Top priority for selection in the 

absence of any issues of funding 

availability or programmatic 

priorities.

Very Good

A competent proposal of high merit 

that fully responds to the objectives 

of the NRA, whose strengths fully 

out-balance any weaknesses and 

none of those weaknesses 

constitute fatal flaws.

Second priority for selection in 

the absence of any issues of 

funding availability or 

programmatic priorities.

Good

A competent proposal that 

represents a credible response to 

the NRA, whose strengths and 

weaknesses essentially balance 

each other.

May be selected as funds permit 

based on programmatic 

priorities.

Fair

A proposal that provides a nominal 

response to the NRA but whose 

weaknesses outweigh any 

strengths.

Not selectable regardless of the 

availability of funds or 

programmatic priorities.

Poor

A seriously flawed proposal having 

one or more major weaknesses 

that constitute fatal flaws.

Not selectable regardless of the 

availability of funds or 

programmatic priorities.

Review panels are instructed not 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, concise language 

that is understandable to the non-specialist by means of perceived major and minor strengths 

and weaknesses, 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, has an inadequate or flawed plan of research, or 

proposes an unrealistic level of effort).

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. NASA 

Program Officers and Selection Officials typically consider proposals ranked closely to be 

essentially co-equal and, therefore, invoke other factors to discriminate among them, e.g., 

relevance to NASA’s objectives and interests, the balance of the research objectives addressed 

by other tasks within the program, and costs. 
January 2010

C-5

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 objective, 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 and a revised proposal may be requested. 

C.4 Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality

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

The issue of conflicts 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 breach in confidentiality. Reviewers are personally 

responsible for identifying and calling to the attention of the cognizant NASA Program Officer 

any conflicts of interest situations (ref. Appendix E.3), 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 through individuals 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. Non-federal reviewers are 

required to sign a Nondisclosure Agreement in advance of being sent any proposals (a generic 

version of this Agreement is given in Section E.2, Appendix E). U.S. Government employees 

who serve as reviewers are governed by the Ethics in Government Act. By accepting a 

Nondisclosure Agreement, a non-Federal reviewer agrees to abide by its guidelines for conflicts 

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. 

• 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 breach 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.

• In certain situations, NASA may ask individuals to participate as reviewers despite being 

identified in a competing proposal and ask individuals, whether identified in proposals or not, to 

serve on panels that will consider one or more proposals for which those individuals have a 

conflict of interest. In such situations, NASA takes appropriate measures to assure the 

objectivity and integrity of the evaluation process, including, for example, excusing the individual 

from panel discussions of proposals for which a conflict exists. In some cases, the individual 
January 2010

C-6

may also be excused from the discussion of proposals other than those giving rise to the conflict 

of interest if these proposals are in direct programmatic competition with those proposals giving 

rise to the conflict.

C.5 Selection Procedures

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 Selection 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 Selection 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 (ref. Appendix 

D 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 or may 

also offer tentative selections in which NASA requests investigators to team in a joint 

investigation. In such a case, the Proposer will be given the opportunity to accept or 

decline such selection. 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, or participation in a joint 

investigation, the offer of selection may be withdrawn in its entirety by NASA."

Ref. also the last paragraph 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. A revised budget 

and statement of work may be required from the Proposer should this reduction be greater than 

20 percent of that originally proposed. However, as a general rule, if the reduction is less than 

20 percent of the originally proposed budget, the adjustment to the budget and statement of 

work can be extracted from the original proposal and no further submission will be required. 
January 2010

C-7

C.5.3 Disclosure of Selections and Nonselections 

For selected proposals, NASA considers the Proposal Title, the Principal 

Investigator's name and organization, and the Proposal Summary to be in the public domain 

and will post that information on an appropriate publicly accessible location. Prospective 

Proposers should refer to Section 2.3.1 as well as Appendix B, Part (a)(2) for guidance on the 

preparation of their Proposal Summaries in anticipation of public disclosure. If a proposal is 

partially selected by NASA, the Proposer will be given the opportunity to modify the Proposal 

Summary so that it correctly describes the funded research. Selected Proposers are free, but 

not required by NASA, to release any additional information about their proposals that they may 

choose. However, NASA considers other portions of proposals to be proprietary and, therefore, 

does not release these sections of successful proposals to the public without prior consultation 

with the Proposer. 

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

proposals.

C.6 Debriefing of Proposers

A Proposer has the right to be informed of the major factor(s) that led to the acceptance or 

rejection of his/her proposal. 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, 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 (ref. Section C.5.1).

Written debriefings may include an anonymous copy of the proposal’s peer review. Only the 

peer review(s) that form the basis for the acceptance/rejection decision shall be provided to the 

Proposer. Individual reviews that were not considered by NASA in the selection decision shall 

not be provided to the Proposer. In particular, when a peer review panel generates an

evaluation for NASA, this evaluation shall be provided to the Proposer and the individual 

reviews shall not be provided to the Proposer. When there is no panel evaluation and the 

selection decision is based only on individual reviews, the individual reviews may be provided to 

the Proposer (ref. Section C.3).

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, 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.
January 2010

D-1

APPENDIX D

PROPOSAL AWARDS AND CONTINUED SUPPORT

D.1 New Awards

D.1.1 Awards to NASA Centers

A selected proposal submitted from a NASA Center, is funded directly by NASA 

Headquarters through the Agency’s funding mechanism called a Research and Technology 

Operating Plan (RTOP). Awards made to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are funded through the 

contract between NASA and the California Institute of Technology.

D.1.2 Awards to Non-NASA Organizations

A NASA award is signed only by a NASA Grant or Contracting Officer (called an 

"Award Officer" for the purposes of this Guidebook) and is addressed to the proposing 

organization. Only an appointed NASA Award Officer can make commitments, obligations, or 

awards on behalf of the Agency and authorize the expenditure of funds. As a professional 

courtesy, this award will be preceded by notification by electronic mail or postal mail from the 

NASA Program Officer to the Principal Investigator. It is important to note that no commitment 

on the part of NASA or the Government is legally binding, even if in writing by way of a letter of 

selection, from anyone other than a warranted NASA Award Officer.

NASA chooses the funding vehicle best suited for the project and the proposing 

organization, which can be a grant, a contract, an interagency transfer, 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 (ref. Section 2.3.2) asks the Proposer to designate his/her type of organization 

according to the definitions given in Section 1.4.1 (ref. also Appendix B, Part (c)(1)(iii)), as well 

as the NASA Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook referenced in Appendix A). The 

Budget Narrative should clearly state that type of award instrument the Recipient anticipates 

receiving if selected for award (i.e., contract, grant or cooperative agreement). Regardless of 

the type of award, selected investigators are urged to work with their own organization's 

grants/contracts office (sometimes called the Office of Sponsored Research) to understand 

which funding vehicle is being used as the source of support for their award, since the reporting 

requirements and deadlines vary with the type of funding mechanism.

• Grant – A funding instrument used by the Government to accomplish a public purpose of 

support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute. The objective of a grant is the general 

enhancement of the field of scientific and technical programs of interest to NASA. The recipient 

of the grant is an organization, not the Principal Investigator (PI), although the PI is responsible 

for conduct of the project. No substantial technical involvement is expected between NASA and 

the recipient, nor does the Government direct the research by the PI. A grant is usually funded 

on a yearly basis, and the products expected from a grantee are Annual Progress Reports and 

a Final Progress Report. Grants with nonprofit organizations are managed by a NASA Grant 

Officer following the policies set forth in the Grant And Cooperative Agreement Handbook (ref. 

Appendix A for access information).
January 2010

D-2

• Contract – A mutually binding legal commitment between the Government and a 

contractor whose principal purpose is the acquisition by purchase, lease, or barter of property or 

services from the contractor for the direct benefit to or use by the Government. The Principal 

Investigator is responsible for scientific conduct of the project. In general, contracts are 

negotiated and have deliverable products, i.e., the Government "purchases" a product that, in 

the case of an NRA, is a study in a specified area of basic research. Normally, for proposals 

selected through an NRA, no fee or profit is paid under cost contracts with educational 

organizations or nonprofit organizations, as well as cost-sharing contracts with any type of 

entity. Non cost-sharing contracts with commercial organizations are fee bearing. Contracts 

typically carry a variety of reporting requirements that will be specified in their terms. Contracts 

with either nonprofit or for profit organizations are managed by a NASA Contracting Officer 

following the policies in the FAR and NFS (ref. Appendix A for access information).

• Interagency Transfer – 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 

transfers of Federal funds are arranged by NASA Procurement Personnel following currently 

applicable policies and procedures.

• Cooperative Agreement – An agreement similar to a grant with the exception that NASA 

and the recipient are each expected to have substantial technical interaction for the 

performance of the project. A cooperative agreement is usually funded on a yearly basis. The 

only products expected to NASA are Annual Progress Reports and a Final Progress Report. 

Cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations are managed by a NASA Grant Officer, 

while cooperative agreements with for profit entities may be managed by a Contracting Officer 

or a Grant Officer. In any case, cooperative agreements are managed pursuant to the policies 

set forth in the Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook (ref. 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 ( see also Section D.4). 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. 

Payment to commercial firms shall be paid via invoice. Payment to all other organizations shall 

be paid via letter of credit through the Health and Human Services (HHS) Payment 

Management System (PMS). 

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. 
January 2010

D-3

D.2 Requests for Augmentation Funding

Occasionally a selected investigation may have a valid need for additional funding due to 

unforeseen circumstances (e.g., the failure of a critical piece of equipment, or unanticipated 

increase in costs of an approved item or labor rates). In such cases, the Proposer may request 

an augmentation to the award by submitting a letter proposal to the cognizant Program Officer, 

with a copy to the Award Officer, that describes why the increase is needed, the impact to the 

selected investigation if the augmentation is not approved, and a budget for the augmentation 

signed by an authorized representative of the proposing organization. The Program Officer will 

review such requests as soon as possible and make a recommendation to the NASA Award 

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 time extension (ref. section D.3 below) is not allowed. 

The procedures described above apply only to grants and cooperative agreements with 

nonprofit organizations. Cost growth on a cooperative agreement with a for-profit organization 

is the responsibility of the recipient. Finally, any increase in scope on a contract is a subject to 

negotiation and prior approval of the Contracting Officer. 

D.3 No Cost Time Extensions

A no cost time 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 time extension of the award's expiration 

date for up to 12 months by notifying the NASA Award Officer in writing of the revised date and 

the justification for the extension before the end of the period of performance. A copy of this 

request should also be sent to the Technical 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. Ref. Provisions Section 1260.23, and 1274.909 of the Grant and 

Cooperative Agreement Handbook (ref. Appendix A for Web site) for further details.

• In the case of a cooperative agreement with a commercial firm, the parties may extend 

the expiration date if additional time is required to complete the milestones at no increase in 

Government resources. Requests for approval for no-cost time extensions must be forwarded 

to the NASA Award Officer no later than ten days prior to the expiration of the award to be 

considered. 

• In the case of a contract, the Award Officer may authorize a no cost time 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 by the 

Award Officer.
January 2010

D-4

D.4 Funding Continuation of Multiple Year Awards

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 Section 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 Section 

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), 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 progress report, called a 

Summary of Research, is due within 90 days of the expiration date of the award; Ref. Provisions 

Section 1260.22 and Section 1260.151(d) in the Grants and Cooperative Agreement Handbook. 

Investigations with a period of performance exceeding three years may be subject to full peer 

evaluation after the first three years in order to qualify for funding (ref. Provision Section 

1260.13(a)(2) in the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Handbook).

Note: A “Friendly Reminder” will be sent out approximately 70 days prior to the anniversary 

date to remind the Recipient that the first progress report is due in 10 days (60 days prior to the 

anniversary award date). NASA prefers that the Recipient send electronic copies of all progress 

reports to both the Grant Officer and the NASA Technical Officer. 
January 2010

D-5

Sample Friendly Reminder

To: University Name/PI Name

CC: NASA Technical Officer – Name/emailaddress@nasa.gov

NSSC Grant Officer – Name/NSSC.Grant.Reports@nasa.gov

Subject: Friendly Reminder of Progress Report Coming Due 

Reference: NASA Award Number, NNX _ _ _ _ _ _ _, entitled, “XXXX”. 

This notification is sent as a friendly reminder that the Progress Report for subject award 

number is due 60 days prior to your anniversary date of (MM/DD/YY). It is important that NASA 

receives your Progress Reports in a timely manner to facilitate funding approval to continue 

your research effort without delay. 

Please submit this required report electronically via email to both the NASA Grant Officer and 

the NASA Technical Officer identified above. You are not required to send a hard copy of the 

report to the Grant Officer and the Technical Officer. 

Reference Section 1260.22 and Section 1260.151 of the Grant and Cooperative Agreement 

Handbook (http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/index.html) for report requirements. Please note 

that you are still required to comply with the requirements of your grant award document 

entitled, “Required Publications and Reports.” 

All other correspondence, replies and questions concerning Procurement issues related to this 

award, should be addressed to the NSSC Contact Center at:

Email: nssc-contactcenter@nasa.gov

Phone: 877-NSSC123 (877-677-2123)

Fax: 866-779-6772

NASA/NSSC Grants Officer
January 2010

D-6

The funding levels for multiple year awards are fixed at the time that the award is made by a 

NASA Award Officer. However, a revised budget for the next year of a multiple year award will 

be required (i) if the anticipated expenditures are greater than that stated in the award, (ii) if the 

research has appreciably changed in scope, or (iii) if changes have been made to the planned 

purchases of equipment. Requests for augmentations for work that is beyond the scope of the 

originally approved proposal may require technical evaluations by NASA.

Nevertheless, NASA reserves the right to terminate any multiple year grant or cooperative 

agreement whenever one of the three conditions cited in Section 1260.52 occurs. 

D.5 Completing an Award

At the completion of a grant or cooperative agreement, certain reports are required by NASA 

and will be specified in the award document. Exhibits G and H to the Grants and Cooperative 

Agreement Handbook list the required reports. For a research grant, one of the most common 

award types, the following final reports are generally required: 

• Federal Financial Report (SF 425) 

• Summary of Research

• Subject Inventions Final Report

• Final Inventory Report of Federally-Owned Property 
January 2010

E-1

APPENDIX E

CERTIFICATIONS AND SAMPLE AGREEMENTS

E.1 Certifications and Assurances

E.1.1 Certification of Compliance on Proposal Cover Page

There are currently two formal Certifications and one formal Assurance required as 

part of a proposal submitted in response to a NASA research solicitation. The Certifications and 

Assurance are stated in Sections E.1.2 through E.1.4 below and apply to all organizations 

except U.S. Federal Institutions. In order to reduce paper work required by the submitting 

organizations, the “Certification of Compliance...” reproduced directly below, is now included at 

the bottom of the printout of the Proposal Cover Page. This certification affirms that these 

requirements are met by the proposing organization once the printed version of the Cover Page

is signed by the Authorizing Official of the proposing organization (or by the individual Proposer

if there is no proposing organization) and submitted with the proposal. Therefore, the 

Certifications and Assurance reproduced in sections E.1.2 through E.1.4 are included only for 

reference and information; they should not be submitted with the proposal. For electronic 

submission, the electronic signature of the AOR who submits the proposal is sufficient to meet 

the certification requirements.

Certification of Compliance with Applicable Executive Orders and U.S. Code

By submitting the proposal identified in the Cover Sheet/Proposal Summary in response 

to this Research Announcement, the Authorizing Official of the proposing organization 

(or the individual Proposer if there is no proposing organization) as identified below:

• certifies that the statements made in this proposal are true and complete to the best of 

his/her knowledge;

• agrees to accept the obligations to comply with NASA award terms and conditions if 

an award is made as a result of this proposal; and 

• confirms compliance with all provisions, rules, and stipulations set forth in the two 

Certifications and one Assurance contained in this NRA (namely, (i) the Assurance of 

Compliance with the NASA Regulations Pursuant to Nondiscrimination in Federally 

Assisted Programs, and (ii) Certifications, Disclosures, and Assurances Regarding 

Lobbying and Debarment & Suspension. 

Willful provision of false information in this proposal and/or its supporting documents, or 

in reports required under an ensuing award, is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, 

Section 1001).

In addition, Proposers should be aware that NRAs released by some NASA program 

offices will require additional, specialized certifications (e.g., concerning the impact of proposed 

research that includes environmental, human, or animal care provisions, or other topics required 

by statute, Executive Order, or Government policies) that will need to be individually reproduced 

from the NRA, signed, and submitted with a proposal. In such cases, the certifications will be 

provided in the individual NRAs. 
January 2010

E-2

E.1.2 Assurance of Compliance with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Regulations Pursuant to Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs

“The Organization, corporation, firm, or other organization on whose behalf this 

assurance is signed, hereinafter called "Applicant" 

“HEREBY AGREES THAT it will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(P.L. 88-352), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20U.S.C. 1680 et 

seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), 

and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 16101 et seq.) and all 

requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Regulation of the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (14 CFR Part 1250)(hereinafter called "NASA") issued 

pursuant to these laws, to the end that in accordance with these laws and 

regulations, no person in the United States shall, on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, sex, handicapped condition, or age be excluded from participation in, be 

denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any 

program or activity for which the Applicant receives federal financial assistance from 

NASA; and HEREBY GIVES ASSURANCE THAT it will immediately take any 

measure necessary to effectuate this agreement. 

“If any real property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid of 

federal financial assistance extended to the Applicant by NASA, this assurance shall 

obligate the Applicant, or in the case of any transfer of which federal financial 

assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar 

services or benefits. If any personal property is so provided, this assurance shall 

obligate the Applicant for the period during which it retains ownership or possession 

of the property. In all other cases, this assurance shall obligate the Applicant for the 

period during which the federal financial assistance is extended to it by NASA.

“THIS ASSURANCE is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any 

and all federal grants, loans, contract, property, discounts or other federal financial 

assistance extended after the date hereof to the Applicant by NASA, including 

installation payments after such date on account of applications for federal financial 

assistance which were approved before such date. The Applicant recognizes and 

agrees that such federal financial assistance will be extended in reliance on the 

representations and agreements made in this assurance, and that the United States 

shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is 

binding on the Applicant, its successors, transferees, and assignees, and the person 

or persons whose signatures appear below are authorized to sign on behalf of the 

Applicant.” 
January 2010

E-3

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 FormLLL, "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.”
January 2010

E-4

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:

 (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared 

ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal 

department or agency; 

 (b) 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; 

 (c) 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 

 (d) Have not within a 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.”

Summary of Required Certifications:

( ) Civil Rights Assurance - (Required Annually) – E.1.2

( ) Lobbying Certification – (Required >$100K) – E.1.3

( ) Debarment and Suspension Certification – E.1.4

Note: Reference E.1.1 for electronic submission of required certifications. Certifications 

must be less than one year old at time of award. Procurement personnel will obtain updated 

certifications at time of award if they are outdated. Procurement personnel will also obtain any 

outdated certifications needed on an annual basis (e.g., at time of annual funding). 
January 2010

E-5

E.2 Sample Nondisclosure and Conflict of Interest Agreement

As discussed in section C.1, every person (other than a Civil Servant) who is asked to serve as 

a 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 an individual reviewer or as a 

member of a review panel that will consider the proposal, as well as their obligation to disclose 

any conflicts of interest that they may have with either the proposing personnel or organizations. 

Once signed, these agreements are kept on permanent file by NASA, and no proposal materials 

are sent to a reviewer without confirming that his/her agreement is on file. For reviews 

conducted electronically via NSPIRES, the nondisclosure statement is signed electronically by 

the reviewer prior to that reviewer getting access to the proposal(s). An example of such an 

agreement is reproduced as follows:
January 2010

E-6

Proposal Peer Review Nondisclosure Agreement and Conflict of Interest Avoidance: 

In the performance of peer review of proposals submitted to NASA, I 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 my presence, or that I may have access to or learn 

about, I agree: 

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. 

Specifically, a person identified in a proposal (e.g., principal investigator, co-investigator, consultants, 

and collaborator) is not permitted to participate in the review of competing proposals unless specifically 

authorized by NASA to do so. A person may also be excluded from participating as a reviewer of any 

proposals, unless authorized by NASA, if a close professional associate from his/her own organization 

is identified in a proposal. In addition, a reviewer is not permitted to take part in the review of a 

particular proposal (a) that originates from his/her own organization; or (b) if any of the personnel 

identifies in the proposal are closely related to the reviewer (e.g., household family members, partners, 

or professional associates); or (c) if the reviewer has a financial interest in a proposing organization 

(e.g., ownership of stock or securities, employment, or arrangements for prospective employment). If a 

reviewer is given access to a proposal for which a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer shall notify 

NASA immediately and return the proposal.

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. 

For Hard Copy Submittals (if applicable): 

Printed Name, Signature and Date: ____________________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

Note: A candidate reviewer who declares himself as a non-civil servant is presented with a “Review 

Assignment Agreement” which displays the Proposal Peer Review Nondisclosure Agreement and Conflict 

of Interest Avoidance statement (as shown above). In NSPIRES, the reviewer clicks on either the 

“Accept” button or “Decline” button. Clicking on the “Accept” button is considered the equivalent of 

providing an electronic signature. If a reviewer does not electronically “Accept” this agreement and 

statement, he/she will not be granted access to the proposal to be reviewed.
January 2010

E-7

E.3 Conflicts of Interest for NASA Peer Reviewers

As discussed in Section C.1, NASA expects all peer reviewers (both Federal government 

employees [i.e. civil servants] and others) to disclose all conflicts of interest, as well as 

situations which may be actual conflicts of interest or which may give the appearance of a 

conflict of interest. Peer reviewers are also expected to disclose situations which may give the 

appearance of bias, or may cause a reasonable observer to question the ability of the reviewer 

to provide an unbiased evaluation of a proposal. A summary of situations which may constitute 

conflicts of interest for NASA peer reviewers is reproduced as follows:
January 2010

E-8

Conflicts of Interest for NASA Peer Reviewers 

(This is a list of examples and not an exhaustive list of disqualifying affiliations and 

relationships.) 

You may have a disqualifying conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest if you 

have a relationship or affiliation identified in any of the three categories listed below: 

1. YOUR AFFILIATIONS WITH A PROPOSING OR APPLICANT INSTITUTION OR COMPANY.

• Current employment at the proposing organization as a professor, adjunct professor, visiting professor, 

employee, or similar position.

• Other current employment with the proposing organization (such as a consulting or advisory 

arrangement)

• Seeking or negotiating for employment with the proposing organization.

• Formal or informal arrangement for future employment with the proposing organization.

• A financial interest in the proposing organization (e.g. ownership of securities).

• Serving as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, or in another role of authority in the proposing 

organization. (Ordinary membership in a professional society or association is not considered an office.)

• Current enrollment as a student with a proposing organization. (Only a conflict for proposals or 

applications that originate from the department or school in which one is a student.)

• Previous employment with the proposing organization within the last 12 months.

• Any award, honoraria, or other payment received from a proposing organization within the last 12 

months.

2. YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH AN INVESTIGATOR, PROJECT DIRECTOR, OR OTHER PERSON 

WHO IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE PROPOSAL OR OTHER APPLICATION.

• Family relationship as spouse, child, sibling, or parent.

• Business or professional general partnership (An ordinary scientific collaboration is not considered a 

partnership).

• Association as thesis advisor (major professor) or thesis student, or acting in a similar role, within the 

past 12 months.

• Professional or personal relationship which may preclude you from being impartial.

3. YOUR OTHER AFFILIATIONS OR RELATIONSHIPS.

• The following interests may create a conflict or the appearance of a conflict for you: Any financial 

interest or professional affiliation or relationship of your spouse, your minor child, anyone living in your 

immediate household, or anyone who is legally your general partner. (E.g., if your spouse is employed by 

a proposing organization, this may create an actual conflict or the appearance of a conflict for you.)

• Other relationship, such as close personal friendship, that you think might tend to affect your judgment 

or be seen as doing so by a reasonable person familiar with the relationship.

• Other financial interests and relationships, such as those related to persons or organizations in 

competition with a proposing organization, which you think might tend to affect your judgment or be seen 

as doing so by a reasonable person familiar with the relationship.

If you identify a potential conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest at the beginning or at any 

time during your tenure as a NASA peer reviewer, bring it immediately to the attention of the NASA 

Program Officer who asked you to serve as a peer reviewer. This official will determine how the matter 

should be handled and will tell you what steps, if any, to take. You should also consult with your local 

NASA legal counsel or ethics official at any time during the process for legal advice.
January 2010

F-1

APPENDIX F

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

F.1 Who answers questions about an award? 

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 Officer (grants and cooperative agreements) identified on the cover page of the 

award document. Questions about administrative and budgetary matters are addressed to the 

NASA Award (i.e., Grants or Contracting) Officer. The PI’s organizational research/grants office 

will know this point of contact from the official award document. It is important for the PI to know 

the various points of contact, including his/her organization’s research/grants office, the NASA 

Award Officer, the NASA Technical Monitor, and/or the NASA Program Officer. Note that the 

NASA Technical Monitor and Program Officer may be the same person. The Contracting 

Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) may be contacted after award for contracts. 

F.2 Is all the information in this Guidebook needed to submit a proposal? 

Starting with the formal publication of this Guidebook, most NRAs released by NASA will 

contain only 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? 

The Principal Investigator is expected to provide scientific and technical leadership for the 

proposed research and the timely publication of results. The PI’s organization has responsibility 

for general supervision of all award activities, especially for all fiduciary matters, and also for 

notifying NASA of any significant problems relating to financial or administrative matters, 

including issues of scientific misconduct and when the PI must be changed for some reason 

(ref. 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?

NASA determines the appropriate funding instrument (a grant, a contract, or a cooperative 

agreement; an interagency transfer; or an intra-NASA funding instrument) for each award based 

on the nature of the program for which the competition was held and the type of proposing 

organization. Occasionally, an NRA will specify that only one type of award will be made based 

on its unique circumstances or requirements.

F.5 Who monitors an award? 

An award is monitored by the NASA Technical Monitor (grants and cooperative agreements) or 

the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) (contracts), 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 
January 2010

F-2

advice, including reviews of progress reports, to the Award Officer. The Award Officer has the 

responsibility to ensure that the award is properly administered, including technical, cost, and 

schedule aspects.

F.6 Is it "my" award? 

Although the PI usually originates and writes the proposal and has technical/scientific leadership 

of the work, NASA’s funding awards are legally issued to the proposing organization at which 

the PI is employed and not to the PI personally. Although a PI may use the term "my grant" (or 

contract or cooperative agreement), the distinction between the PI and the legal grant recipient 

is real, and the PI should understand the various responsibilities for the administration of the 

award due to this distinction.

F.7 Must every proposal include certain documents?

Awards for financial assistance are subject to certain U.S. statutory and other general 

requirements, such as compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, and other laws and regulations, e.g., prohibition of discrimination; 

prohibition of misconduct in science and engineering; requirements for a drug-free workplace; 

restrictions on lobbying; requirements for patents and copyrights; and the use of U.S.-flag 

carriers for international travel, whenever possible. For all NRAs submitted through the NASA’s 

electronic proposal system, the signature on the Proposal Cover Page by the Authorizing 

Official of the proposing organization certifies that the organization is cognizant of and in

compliance with all applicable certifications (for information purposes these certifications are 

given in Section E.1 of Appendix E). For all proposals submitted electronically through 

NSPIRES or Grants.gov, the electronic signature of the AOR who submits the proposal meets 

the certification requirements. 

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

Prior approval requirements are set forth in the FAR, the NFS, and the NASA Grant and 

Cooperative Agreement Handbook. Several of the most common situations requiring prior 

written authorization from NASA are: 

• transfer of the project to another organization at which the PI takes employment (ref. 

also F.9 below);

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

• a change in the designation of the PI, e.g., because of his/her change in employment 

status, retirement, or death; 

• a substantial change in the PI’s commitment of effort; 

• new or revised allocations for purchase of major equipment; 

• the intent to award a subcontract in excess of $100,000 or to purchase equipment in 

excess of $5,000 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.
January 2010

F-3

F.9 What happens if the PI changes organizations? 

When a PI leaves his/her organization during the course of an award to that organization, that 

organization has the option of nominating an appropriately qualified replacement PI or 

recommending termination of the award. In the former case, NASA has the right of approval of 

the recommended replacement PI. If the replacement is approved, the award continues at the 

original organization through its nominal period of performance. However, if NASA judges that 

participation of the original PI is critical to the project owing to his/her unique knowledge and 

capabilities, then NASA will seek the agreement of both the PI’s original and new organization 

to either transfer the award (novation) or to terminate the original award at the PI’s original 

organization followed by implementation of a new award at the PI’s new organization to 

complete the project. 

F.10 Who owns any equipment purchased through the award? 

Title to most equipment purchased or fabricated for the purpose of conducting research by an 

academic organization or other nonprofit organization using NASA funds normally vests with the 

recipient organization of the award. In some instances, NASA may elect to take title but, if so, 

the recipient will be notified of that intention when the award is approved by an Award Officer. 

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? 

The award document will contain procedures that define conditions for suspension or 

termination of awards. For example, lack of adequate progress in meeting the objectives of the 

award or failure to submit required reports set forth in the award document on a timely basis 

may be grounds for termination of an award. Awards may also be terminated by mutual 

agreement between the recipient organization and NASA. In the event of a termination, the 

recipient is not entitled to expend any more funds except to the extent required to meet 

commitments that, in the judgment of NASA, had become firm before the effective date of the 

termination. A suspension of advance payments may also occur when a recipient demonstrates 

an unwillingness or inability to comply with financial reporting requirements. Where this occurs, 

the recipient would be required to finance its operations with its own funds, and NASA would 

reimburse the recipient’s costs. Advance payments would be reinstated upon corrective action 

by the recipient organization. An award may also be terminated in cases of professional 

misconduct on the part of the PI.

F.12 Are there required reports? 

The two types of technical reports generally required for grants are as follows. 

• 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 Technical Officer for every award at 

the completion of the period of performance. This report should include substantive 
January 2010

F-4

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 Financial Report (SF 425) that is due at 

the end of each Federal fiscal quarter from the organization holding the award.

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

F.13 What is NASA’s policy about releasing data and results derived through its

sponsored research awards? 

All data taken through research programs sponsored by NASA are considered public. 

As a Federal Agency, NASA requires prompt public disclosure of the results of its sponsored 

research and, therefore, expects significant findings from supported research to be promptly 

submitted for peer reviewed publication with authorship(s) that accurately reflects the 

contributions of those involved. Likewise, as a general policy and unless otherwise specified, 

NASA no longer recognizes a “proprietary” period for exclusive use of any new scientific data 

that may be acquired through the execution of the award; instead, all data collected through any 

of its funded programs are to be placed in the public domain at the earliest possible time 

following their validation and calibration. However, small amounts of data (for example, as 

might be taken during the course of a suborbital (rocket or balloon), Space Shuttle, or Space 

Station investigation) are usually left in the care of the Principal Investigator. In any case, NASA 

may require that any data obtained through an award be deposited in an appropriate public data 

archive as soon as possible after calibration and reduction. If so, NASA will negotiate with the 

organization for appropriate transfer of the data and, as necessary, may provide funds to 

convert the data into an easily used format using standard units.

Note: There are cases when data cannot be disclosed in the public domain (e.g., export 

controlled data). Even in these cases, Proposers are expected to publish data to the greatest 

extent possible (e.g., use normalized data or at least discuss new methodologies used with 

clean “test cases.”) 

F.14 How is NASA to be acknowledged in publications? 

All publications (including websites or other electronic only products) of any material based on 

or developed under NASA sponsored projects should conclude or begin 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 

<XYZ> Mission Directorate <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."
January 2010

F-5

Finally, as a courtesy, any releases of NASA photographic or illustrative data products should 

list NASA first on the credit line followed by the name of the PI institution, for example, 

"Photograph <or illustration, figure, etc.> courtesy of NASA <or NASA Center managing 

the mission or program> and the <Principal Investigator institution>."

F.15 Can audits occur, and are they important? 

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? 

A no cost time extension to an award allows the completion of the objectives for which the 

proposal was selected that have not been accomplished in the originally specified period of 

performance owing to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., the inability to hire a critically important 

graduate student or postdoctoral employee in time; the breakdown of a unique and critical piece 

of equipment; or the inability to coordinate important activities with Co-Is through circumstances 

beyond the control of the PI). A no cost time extension may not be implemented merely to use 

funds that are unspent because of the untimely planning of activities within the original period of 

performance. For a one-time extension of a grant or a cooperative agreement with a 

noncommercial firm, the recipient must notify NASA in writing with the supporting reasons and 

revised expiration date (not to exceed twelve months) before the expiration date specified in the 

award. For cooperative agreements with commercial firms, the parties may extend the 

expiration date if additional time is required to complete the milestones at no increase in 

Government resources. Requests for approval for no cost time extensions must be forwarded 

to the NASA Agreement Officer no later than ten days prior to the expiration of the award to be 

considered. For a contract, an appropriate request must be submitted for NASA’s approval by 

the recipient organization. Ref. further details on No Cost Time Extensions in Section D.3 of 

Appendix D and Provisions Section 1260.23, and 1274.909 of the Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements Handbook (ref. Appendix A for Web site).

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

Funding for research using U.S. Federal monetary resources is a privilege accorded to U.S. 

organizations by NASA acting on behalf of the U.S. Congress and the public at large. The 

recipient is legally obligated to use the funds appropriately and conscientiously to justify their 

continued appropriation through the Federal budget. This obligation necessarily entails 

attention to the details of how the award is competed and selected, and then how the selected 

activities are carried out, in order to provide public accountability of the Nation’s financial 

resources throughout the process.

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

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 (ref. also Section C.2 of Appendix C). 

Regarding this latter factor, most of NASA’s NRAs are oversubscribed by factors ranging 

typically from two to five or even higher. The entirety of the factors leading to a decision of 
January 2010

F-6

selection or nonselection will be conveyed to the Proposers during the course of a debriefing 

after selections are announced (ref. 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? 

All proposals submitted in response to an NRA are subjected to exactly the same peer review 

process regardless of the submitting organization, including NASA Centers. NASA is now 

operating using full cost budgeting, accounting, and management practices. As such, all 

research proposals should be submitted with fully loaded costs for all cost items that will be 

funded with the requested award, including procurement, civil service labor, travel, etc. 

Overhead, such as IT seats, should be included to the extent that it will be funded through the 

requested award. NASA researchers answering NRAs should comply with the full cost policies 

current for the requested year of performance. Non-NASA researchers answering NRAs should 

work with the NASA sponsoring organization to ensure all direct and institutional costs 

(including NASA facilities and civil service labor) are adequately accounted for. The web 

address for NASA’s Full Cost Initiative is: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/fullcost.

F.20 Why is an award sometimes slow in being implemented after selection? 

NASA is committed to the goal of initiating 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? 

Every person who has agreed in writing (ref. Section 2.3.9) to perform a significant role in a 

proposed effort, even if at no cost, is entitled to be listed as a Co-I (ref. also Section 1.4.2). 

However, since one of the nominal requirements for the Science/Technical/Management 

Section of a proposal is the justification of each key member of a proposal’s team (ref. Section 

2.3.5), Proposers are reminded that the stated contributions and qualifications of proposal 

personnel will be evaluated as part of the peer review process. Inclusion of unjustified 

personnel can lead to a downgrading of a proposal’s rating.

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

NASA research solicitations?

NASA commonly issues three types of solicitations for scientific and technical research that are 

broadly defined as follows:

• NASA Research Announcement (NRA) – A NRA is used to solicit and competitively 

select relatively nonspecific research, technology, and/or education projects and investigations 

to be funded through NASA’s ongoing Research and Analysis budgets. Awards made through 

NRAs are typically for three years although some awards can be for as long as five years. NRA 
January 2010

F-7

awards are most commonly in the form of grants but at NASA’s discretion, and depending on 

the type of the proposing organization, may be a contract or a cooperative agreement. 

• Announcement of Opportunity (AO) – 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 experimental 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) – A CAN is used to solicit unique research 

programs and/or related activities that involves a relatively high degree of interaction and 

cooperation between NASA and the selected recipient(s) to achieve NASA’s desired objectives 

(e.g., to develop and operate a research institute, an extensive educational/public outreach 

activity, or a specified technology capability). Funding through a CAN is always done through a 

cooperative agreement award and can be for amounts up to several millions of dollars and for

time periods as long as five years. 

Most NRAs issued by NASA will rely upon this Guidebook to specify the organization and 

submission of proposals. However, because of their highly unique characteristics, AOs and 

CANs will usually include their own specific instructions concerning the format and content of 

proposals, although frequently the instructions for a proposal’s Proposal Cover Page may be 

identical to that given in this Guidebook due to the use of the common proposal database 

system by NASA Headquarters that is accessed at http://nspires.nasaprs.com/. 

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

Proposals or proposal modifications received after the 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. Reference 

Appendix B, paragraph (g), Late Proposals. 

F.24 Why doesn’t NASA release the names of the reviewers who reviewed my proposal?

NASA solicits the most knowledgeable, non-conflicted peers available to review the proposals it 

receives. It is NASA’s opinion, which is generally substantiated by the opinions of the reviewers 

it has used, that preserving the anonymity of the participants in the review process promotes 

more candid comments than if this practice were not used. During the conduct of a panel a 

NASA Program Officer is present to ensure that the discussions and written text on the review 

forms remain focused on the technical qualities of the proposals being discussed. The review 

comments on the Summary Evaluation Form, which reflect the considered opinion of the entire 

panel and not those of any one reviewer, are preserved for the record. 
January 2010

F-8

F.25 I can’t find the application forms in Grants.gov for the specific solicitation that I want to 

propose to; where are they?

Each NRA can be found by searching on the NRA title. All NASA application packages may be 

found by searching on CFDA Number 00.000. For omnibus NRAs (e.g. ROSES, ROA), each 

program element requires a different application package and has a different Funding 

Opportunity Number; the Funding Opportunity Number may be found in each appendix of the 

omnibus NRA. Enter the appropriate Funding Opportunity Number to retrieve the desired 

application package.

F.26 How can a PI verify that his/her proposal has been properly submitted?

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the successful submission of a proposal and to ensure 

that all required parts of the proposal, as described in the solicitation, are incorporated.

NSPIRES automatically assigns a unique proposal number to each proposal only after it has 

been successfully submitted. NASA uses this NSPIRES number throughout the proposal review 

and selection process to uniquely identify the proposal and its associated electronic data. If no 

NSPIRES number appears on the Proposal Cover Page, then it has not been submitted finally 

and correctly through the NSPIRES system.

Proposers can also verify that their proposals have been submitted by logging into NSPIRES, 

and verifying that the proposal record now appears in the "Submitted Proposals" (versus "Active 

Proposals") part of their accounts. 

As a courtesy, the PI and AOR will both receive an email from the NSPIRES system indicating 

that a proposal has been successfully submitted. This email is sent within moments of 

submission and should thus be received very quickly after the submission activity. Proposers 

not receiving such an email should contact the NSPIRES Help Desk at nspireshelp@nasaprs.com or on (202) 479-9376. 

NOTE: Proposals submitted to Grants.gov will be transferred to NSPIRES for evaluation 

purposes. When this transfer is complete (possibly a few days after submission), Proposers will 

receive an email as described above and will be able to find the proposal record within the 

appropriate part of their NSPIRES account.

F.27 Does NASA prefer special formatting for Education grants/cooperative agreements? 

Preferred Education Project Report Format

Project Reports are a comprehensive summary of significant accomplishments during the 

reporting period or the duration of the grant. Progress Reports, Final Reports and interim 

Educational Activity Reports ideally include the following information in the following order to 

facilitate cross project analysis and reporting:

(1) NASA Grant Number and Title of the grant.

(2) Type of report (Progress, Final or Interim).

(3) Name(s) of the principal investigator and other key project personnel with institutional 

contact information (e-mail and phone).
January 2010

F-9

(4) Period covered by the report. (From: month/day/year To: month/day/year)

(5) An updated project abstract (not to exceed 500 words). Please include the goal(s) of the 

project and your estimate of whether/when those goals have been/will be achieved.

(6) List deliverables or products being prepared or already developed (for example but not 

limited to: outreach materials/exhibits/film and other media/URLs etc.) that will lead to the 

accomplishment of the project’s goals, impacts, or outcomes. Please briefly describe each 

deliverable in enough detail to allow report of intended or unintended effects.

(7) Identify types of target audience(s) under two broad categories: 1)Public and 2) Professional 

and provide target and actual (if available) participation numbers. Identify the most important 

intended audience impacts (up to three). For each audience impact, indicate how you (will) 

measure or assess that impact or for defining overall success.

(8) A Project or (if applicable) Product Evaluation Update: Indicate (Yes or No) whether or when 

the project engaged in third-party or self-assessment activities. This includes internal or 

external evaluators or peer or scientific reviewer components. If the answer is “No” or not 

applicable, please indicate why no evaluation was conducted or is planned.

If the answer is ”Yes”, please briefly explain by:

a) Listing approaches, data collection techniques, and/or modes of analysis used to 

demonstrate impact, such as:

-Project administrative records

-Pre/post test of participants’ skills, knowledge, or attitudes

-Telephone survey

-Mail survey

-Formal interviews, in person

-Formal interviews, by telephone

-Unstructured interviews with participants

-Observation

-Focus groups

-Formal education system data

-Count of attendance, participation, or use

-Other (did you have a target or treatment audience and a control group?).

b) Indicate if documents, such as an evaluation plan or formative evaluation reports, 

data sets, etc., exist and contact information for obtaining these materials and whether 

they are publicly available.

c)What continuing impact is this project/product likely to have?

(9) Problems Encountered and Other Information.

(10) Dissemination Accomplishments/Plans.

An important way that NASA makes information available to the public in a transparent and 

meaningful manner is to ask grantees to acknowledge NASA funding. All information produced 

and disseminated by a grantee should contain a statement that acknowledges NASA's support 

and identifies the grant by number (e.g., "This website (or CD label) is based upon work 

supported by NASA under award No(s) <insert number(s)>."). Except for articles or papers 

published in scientific, technical, or professional journals, the exposition of results from NASA 

supported research should use the following disclaimer: "Any opinions, findings, and 
January 2010

F-10

conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the views of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.”

If available, please indicate a URL. If your project does not have or need a URL, please 

consider alternative distribution sites, such as informallearning.org, articles for journals, and 

presentations at national conferences such as the Association of Science-Technology Centers 

(ASTC); American Evaluation Association, etc.

F.28 How is payment provided to commercial firms versus to educational institutions and 

nonprofit organizations?

Guidance for payment of grants and cooperative agreements can be found in the Grant and 

Cooperative Agreement Handbook (ref. A-2).

- Educational Institutions and Nonprofit Organizations – Reference 1260.26 

(Financial Management).

- Commercial Firms – Reference 1260.68 (Invoices and payments under grants 

with commercial firms) and 1260.69 (Electronic funds transfer payment 

methods).

Payment to commercial firms shall be paid via invoice. Payment to all other organizations shall 

be paid via letter of credit through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

Payment Management System (PMS). 
January 2010

G-1

APPENDIX G 

Security Requirements

G.1 Requirement for Grant and Cooperative Agreement awards.

PIV Card Issuance Procedures in accordance with Grant and Cooperative Agreement 

Handbook § Section 1260.35 Investigative Requirements (January 2004)

In accordance with the requirements of Provision Section 1260.35, Investigative Requirements, 

which states in part that Recipients needing access to a NASA Center, facility, or computer 

system, or to NASA technical information shall comply with the requirements of this provision 

and shall ensure that individuals needing such access shall provide the personal background 

and biographical information requested by NASA.

Provision Section 1260.35 is hereby further defined that Grant Recipients shall comply with the 

requirements of GIC 06-02 and its attached “PIV Card Issuance Procedures.”

GIC 06-02 may be found at the following URL: http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/portals/pl/index.html

G.2 Requirement for Contract awards.

PIV Card Issuance Procedures in accordance with FAR Clause 52.204-9, Personal Identity 

Verification of Contractor Personnel (November 2006)

Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel (Nov 2006)

(a) The Contractor shall comply with agency personal identity verification procedures identified 

in the contract that implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD-12), Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) guidance M-05-24, as amended, and Federal Information 

Processing Standards Publication (FIPS PUB) Number 201, as amended.

(b) The Contractor shall insert this clause in all subcontracts when the subcontractor is required 

to have routine physical access to a Federally-controlled facility and/or routine access to a 

Federally-controlled information system.

(End of Clause)

In accordance with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of 

Contractor Personnel, Contractors shall comply with the requirements of PIC 06-01 and its 

attached “PIV Card Issuance Procedures.” 

PIC 06-01 may be found at the following URL:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/pic06-01.doc
January 2010

H -1

APPENDIX H 

PROCESS FOR APPEALS

H.1 Ombudsman Review Process

The NASA Procurement Ombudsman Program is available under NRAs as a procedure for 

addressing concerns and disagreements. The clause at NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 

1852.215-84, Ombudsman, is incorporated into NRAs by reference. The cognizant Ombudsman 

is as follows: 

James A. Balinskas

Director, Contract Management Division

Office of Procurement

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546

Telephone: 202-358-0445

Facsimile: 202-358-3083

Email: james.a.balinskas@nasa.gov

H.2 Protest Process

Only prospective Offerors seeking contract awards (not grant and/or cooperative agreement 

awards) under NRAs have the right to file a protest either with the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) or with the Agency, as defined in FAR 33.101. The provisions at FAR 52.233-2, 

Service of Protest, FAR 52.233-3, Protest after Award, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS)

1852.233-70, Protests to NASA, are incorporated into NRAs by reference. The designated 

official for receipt of protests to the Agency and copies of protests filed with the GAO is as 

follows: 

William P. McNally

Assistant Administrator for Procurement

Office of Procurement

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546.

Telephone: 202-358-2090

Facsimile: 202-358-3082

Email: William.P.McNally@nasa.gov