National Science Foundation
Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure 2015-2019 (NHERI)
Solicitation #: 15-598
Office for Research Development Letter of Intent submission deadline: Monday, September 7, 2015
Agency Letter of Intent due: October 16, 2015
Full Proposal due to Agency: November 4, 2015
Anticipated Funding Amount: $62,000,000
Estimated Number of Awards: 10
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 2
Synopsis of Program:
The planned outcome of this solicitation is to establish the final three awards for the NSF-supported Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure (NHERI) - Network Coordination Office (NCO), Computational Modeling and Simulation Center (SimCenter), and Post-Disaster, Rapid Response Research (RAPID) Facility. The focus is earthquake and wind – with a view to fund a NCO, SimCenter, and a RAPID facility.
Because the NCO, SimCenter, and RAPID Facility are integral awards for an integrated NHERI facility, this solicitation includes information about all four components of NHERI listed in NSF 14-605: NCO, Cyberinfrastructure (CI), SimCenter and Experimental Facility (EF). The RAPID Facility is considered part of the EF cohort. However, under this solicitation, proposals will only be accepted for the NCO, SimCenter, and RAPID Facility. All other proposals will be returned without review.
In an effort to provide the highest level of excellence and viability for funding, a review process will be put in place if more than one proposal is submitted. The finalist will be asked to represent Oregon State University and to submit their proposal to the NSFprogram by the NSF letter of intent deadline.
Information: Mary Phillips, Director, Office for Research Development at email@example.com
General guidance for preparation of letters of intent to the Research Office:
COVER SHEET (1 page)
- Solicitation Name and Descriptive Title
- Project Summary: 3 or 4 sentences or bullet points that provide an overview of the objective of your proposed research, how you plan to do it, and the expected outcome.
- Unique Aspects: 3 or 4 sentences or bullet points that highlight how your research/approach is different/better.
- Key PI/co-PIs: 5 or 6 sentences or bullet points that highlight team expertise as it relates to the project.
- Budget: Example: The total cost of the project is anticipated to be $ X, with $ Y being requested from the NSF. NSF funds will be used for: $ A for personnel; $ B for operations, and $ C for broader impacts/subcontracts etc.
- Justification for NSF support: One paragraph explaining why this research fits with the RFP and strategic goals of NSF.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (1 - 4 pages)
- Problem statement : Clear and concise statement of 1) research question(s) and how the project will address the research question(s); 2) what technical barriers need to be overcome to perform the research; and 3) how the proposed research can lead to the advancement of research/knowledge in this area.
- Conceptual framework: Conceptual framework describing, for example, how the synthesis of various project components, approaches, and participant expertise are linked together to address the problem of interest. Graphics may be used.
- Proposed activities: Describe the project to be undertaken and provide the technical specifications of the research activities and timelines that will be undertaken.
- Expected results: Describe the outcome you anticipate from the research. (Remember your initial motivation for wanting to do this!)
- Peer Groups: Who else is doing something similar, why their discoveries are useful for you, and what discriminates you.
- Broader Impact/Metrics for Success: What metrics are the most appropriate for evaluating the success of the proposed project (e.g., peer-reviewed papers, policy-directed efforts, databases, models, development of new resources, etc.)? If successful, who would most likely use the knowledge or tools developed?
- Fundraising: List any matching fund requests, industry commitments etc. List any similar current proposals pending.
Suggested Reviewers: (1 page) Optional – but as you write envision who might be a reviewer of your proposal or the Program Officer.
- Reviewer 1: Area of expertise
- State why you think this person would be a good reviewer.
· Submit electronically as a PDF document to: Research.Development@oregonstate.edu