|
 |
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions and answers have been extracted from the Guidebook for Proposers Responding to a NASA Research Announcement. Click for most current version.
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 Monitor identified on the cover page of the award document. Questions about administrative and budgetary matters are addressed to the NASA Award (i.e., Grants or Contracting) Officer. The PI's institutional research/grants office will know this point of contact from the official award document. It is important for the PI to know the various points of contact, including his/her institution's research/grants office, the NASA Award Officer, the NASA Technical Monitor, and/or the NASA Program Officer. Note that the NASA Technical Monitor and Program Officer may be the same person.
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 Headquarters will only contain information specific to the technical description of that one advertised program. The NRA will then refer prospective proposers to this Guidebook for all common or "default" requirements, policies, procedures, and formats to be used for the preparation of proposals unless specifically exempted otherwise in the NRA. It is the intention of NASA to restrict exceptions to these standards to items that are unique to a given NRA.
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 institution has responsibility for general supervision of all award activities, especially for all fiduciary matters, and also for notifying NASA of any significant problems relating to financial or administrative matters, including issues of scientific misconduct and when the PI must be changed for some reason. 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.
Who determines the type of award to be made?
For non-NASA recipients, NASA determines the appropriate funding instrument (a grant, a contract, or a cooperative agreement; an interagency agreement; or an intra-NASA funding instrument) for each award based on the nature of the program for which the competition was held and the type of proposing institution. Occasionally an NRA will specify that only one type of award will be made based on its unique circumstances or requirements.
Who monitors an award?
An award is monitored by the NASA Technical Monitor or the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative, who serves as an official resource to the NASA Grants or Contracting Officer, respectively. This person is knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the award and provides scientific and technical advice, including reviews of progress reports, to the Award Officer. The Award Officer has responsibility to ensure that the award is properly administered, including technical, cost, and schedule aspects.
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 institution at which the PI is employed and not to the PI personally. Although a PI may use the term "my grant" (or contract or cooperative agreement), the distinction between the PI and the legal grant recipient is real, and the PI should understand the various responsibilities for the administration of the award.
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
January 2003 F-1 and regulations, e.g., prohibition of discrimination; prohibition of misconduct in science and engineering; requirements for a drug-free workplace; restrictions on lobbying; requirements for patents and copyrights; and the use of U.S.-flag carriers for international travel, whenever possible. The signature on the Proposal Cover Page by the Authorizing Official of the proposing institution certifies that the institution is cognizant of and in compliance with all applicable certifications (for information purposes these certifications are given in Section E.1 of Appendix E of this Guidebook).
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 institution at which the PI takes employment (see also below
- A substantive change in objectives or scope of the project
- A change in the designation of the PI, e.g., because of a change in employment status
- A substantial change in the PI's commitment of effort
- New or revised allocations for purchase of equipment
- the intent to award a subcontract in excess of $100,000 or to purchase equipment in excess of $5000 that was not part of the original budget; and/or
- actions involving a change of obligations (legally called a 'novation').
The recipient organization requests approval for such actions from the NASA Award Officer, who often will ask for a recommendation from the cognizant Technical Monitor. However, only the NASA Award Officer can officially approve or deny such requests.
What happens if the PI changes institutions?
When a PI leaves his/her organization during the course of an award to that institution, that organization has the option of nominating an appropriately qualified replacement PI or recommending termination of the award. In the former case, NASA has the right of approval of the recommended replacement PI. If the replacement is approved, the award continues at the original institution through its nominal period of performance. However, if NASA judges that participation of the original PI is critical to the project owing to his/her unique knowledge and capabilities, then NASA will seek the agreement of both the PI's original and new institutions for the implementation of a new award at the PI's new institution to complete the project.
Who owns any equipment purchased through the award?
Title to most equipment purchased or fabricated for the purpose of conducting research by an academic institution or other nonprofit organization using NASA funds normally vests with the recipient institution of the award. In some instances, NASA may elect to take title but, if so, the recipient will be notified of that intention when the purchase is approved by NASA. Title to equipment acquired by a commercial organization using Federal funds provided through any type of award vests with the Government.
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 institution and NASA. In the event of a termination, the recipient is not entitled to expend any more funds except to the extent required to meet commitments that, in the judgment of NASA, had become firm before the effective date of the termination. A suspension of advance payments may also occur when a recipient demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to comply with financial reporting requirements. Where this occurs, the recipient would be required to finance its operations with its own funds, and NASA would reimburse the recipient's costs. Advance payments would be reinstated upon corrective action by the recipient institution.
Are there required reports?
The two types of technical reports generally required for grants are as follows. Starting sometime in 2003, both of them are expected to be submitted through a specified World Wide Web site using a unique identification number given to the successful proposal:
- ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT -- For multiple year awards, NASA requires that a brief progress report be submitted to the Program Officer 60 days before the anniversary date of the award, in order to allow for the timely recommendation for a continuation of funding.
- SUMMARY OF RESEARCH -- NASA requires a final summary of research report to be submitted to the NASA Awards Officer and the Program Officer for every award at the completion of the period of performance. This report should include substantive results from the work, as well as references to all published materials from the work, and is due within 90 days after the end of the award.
Other reports, in addition to technical reports, are required that include financial, property, invention or other specialized reports applicable for certain types of grants (such as education grants). The award document will include a complete list of required reports and schedules for their submission. Especially significant is the Federal Cash Transaction Report (SF 272) that is due at the end of each Federal fiscal quarter from the institution holding the award.
If the resulting award is a contract, reporting requirements will be detailed in the award.
What is NASA's policy about releasing data and results derived through its sponsored research awards?
As a Federal Agency, NASA requires prompt public disclosure of the results of its sponsored research and, therefore, expects significant findings from supported research to be promptly submitted for peer reviewed publication with authorship(s) that accurately reflects the contributions of those involved. Likewise, as a general policy and unless otherwise specified, NASA no longer recognizes a proprietary period for exclusive use of any new scientific data that may be acquired through the execution of the award; instead, all data collected through any of its funded programs are to be placed in the public domain at the earliest possible time following their validation and calibration. However, small amounts of data (for example, as might be taken during the course of a suborbital (rocket or balloon), Space Shuttle, or Space Station investigation) are usually left in the care of the Principal Investigator. In any case, NASA may require that any data obtained through an award be deposited in an appropriate public data archive as soon as possible after calibration and reduction. If so, NASA will negotiate with the institution for appropriate transfer of the data and, as necessary, may provide funds to convert the data into an easily used format using standard units.
How is NASA to be acknowledged in publications?
All publications of any material based on or developed under NASA sponsored projects should conclude with the following acknowledgement:
"This material is based upon work supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Grant/Contract/Agreement No. issued through the Office of ."
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 are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."
Finally, without any exceptions, all releases of photographic or illustrative data products must list NASA first on the credit line followed by the name of the PI organization, for example,
"Photograph courtesy of NASA and the ."
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.
What are the uses of a No Cost Extension?
A No Cost Extension to an award allows the completion of the objectives for which the proposal was selected that have not been accomplished in the originally specified period of performance owing to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., the inability to hire a critically important graduate student or postdoctoral employee in time; the breakdown of a unique and critical piece of equipment; or the inability to coordinate important activities with Co-I's through circumstances beyond the control of the PI). A No Cost Extension may not be implemented merely to use funds that are unspent because of the untimely planning of activities within the original period of performance. For a one-time extension of a grant, the recipient must notify NASA in writing with the supporting reasons and revised expiration data at least 10 days before the expiration date specified in the award. For a contract, an appropriate request must be submitted for NASA's approval by the recipient institution. In either case, NASA will not accept requests for an augmentation to an award during a no cost extension, and any successor proposal that is selected will not be funded until a no cost extension has expired. See further details on No Cost Extensions in Section D.3 of Appendix D of this Guidebook and paragraphs 1260.23 and 1260.1255(e)(2) of the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Handbook (see Appendix A for Web site).
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. institutions by NASA acting on behalf of the U.S. Congress and the public at large. The recipient is legally obligated to use the funds appropriately and conscientiously to justify their continued appropriation through the Federal budget. This obligation necessarily entails attention to the details of how the award is competed and selected, and then how the selected activities are carried out, in order to provide public accountability of the Nation's financial resources throughout the process.
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 (see also Section C.2 of Appendix C of this Guidebook). Regarding this latter factor, most of NASA's NRAs are oversubscribed by factors ranging typically from two to five and can be even much higher. The entirety of the factors leading to a decision of selection or nonselection will be conveyed to the proposers during the course of a debriefing after selections are announced (see Section C.6 of Appendix C).
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. In the near future, NASA is expecting to be operating on the basis of full cost accounting, which will be applicable to all research proposals submitted by its Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This new accounting practice is being implemented as rapidly as possible.
Why is an award sometimes slow in being implemented after selection?
NASA is committed to implement awards within 46 days after the selections are announced to the proposers. However, sometimes additional materials are needed from the proposer (e.g., revised budgets and/or budget details) before NASA may legally obligate Federal money. Contracts and cooperative agreements with for profit entities generally take longer owing to greater complexity. Finally, NASA's ability to distribute funds is dependent on the timely approval of its budget through the Federal budget process, which occasionally may be delayed; such a delay can significantly affect the implementation of awards, especially those whose nominal start dates would fall in the first quarter of the Fiscal Year (October through December).
Who may be listed as participating personnel on a proposal?
Every person who has agreed in writing (see Section 2.3.10) to perform a significant role in a proposed effort, even if at no cost, is entitled to be listed as a Co-I (see also Section 1.4.2). However, proposers are reminded that, since one of the nominal requirements for the Science/Technical/Management Section of a proposal is the justification of each key member of a
proposal's team (see Section 2.3.5), then the stated contributions and qualifications of proposal personnel will be evaluated as part of the peer review process. Inclusion of unjustified personnel can lead to a downgrading of a proposal's rating.
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 and for relatively limited amounts of money ($50 to 200 K), although some awards can be as much as $1 M (e.g., construction and flight of a suborbital experiment payload). NRA awards are most commonly in the form of grants, but at NASA's discretion, and depending on the nature of the proposing organization, may be a contract or a cooperative agreement.
- Announcement of Opportunity (AO) - An AO is used to competitively select relatively well-defined science investigations for a specific research opportunity funded by a specific element in NASA's budget, most commonly a NASA space mission (or program of missions such as the Explorer missions) that may, but does not always, involve the provision and operation of experiment hardware. Science investigations carried out through an AO almost always involve a considerable degree of oversight by NASA to ensure adherence to cost and schedule requirements and are almost always funded through a contract since well-defined deliverables are involved. Contracts awarded through an AO can be for hundreds of millions of dollars and may have periods of performance lasting ten years or more for space flight missions.
- Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) - A CAN is used to solicit unique research programs and/or related activities that involves a relatively high degree of interaction and cooperation between NASA and the selected recipient(s) to achieve NASA's desired objectives (e.g., to develop and operate a research institute, an extensive educational/public outreach activity, or a specified technology capability). Funding through a CAN is always done through a cooperative agreement award and can be for amounts up to several millions of dollars and for time periods as long as five years.
Most NRAs issued by NASA Headquarters will rely upon this Guidebook to specify the organization and submission of proposals. However, because of their highly unique characteristics, AOs and CANs will usually include their own specific instructions concerning the format and content of proposals, although frequently the instructions for a proposal's Proposal Cover Page may be identical to that given in this Guidebook owing to the use of the common proposal data base system by Headquarters that is accessed through the Web site http://proposals.hq.nasa.gov/proposals.cfm.
Why isn't NASA more flexible about receiving late proposals?
Regardless of the reason for its being late, submission of a proposal after the deadline inherently allows that proposer additional time to prepare his/her submission, which in principle gives the proposal a competitive advantage over those submitted on time. Even if this were not the case, in practice the accommodation of late proposals creates logistical problems since, within only a few working days after their due date, all proposals must be screened for compliance and completeness, logged in, and stored, and within five days NASA's support contractor is required to provide a complete log of all proposals, including the names of all proposal personnel, to the responsible Program Officer to use for finalizing plans for the peer review. Interrupting this process for even a few late proposals can impact the review/selection schedule. As for a proposal being late because of unforeseen circumstances beyond the PI's control, it is untenable for NASA to judge the merits for each case to decide whether or not to accept some while rejecting others.
|
