Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

Facility Request Procedures:How does it work?

NSF Facilities Users’ Workshop

24 September 2007

Brigitte Baeuerle (EOL), Jim Huning and Steve Nelson (NSF/ATM)

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES

• To describe current request process for Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities;

• To explain the reasoning behind the changes, implemented in late 2004;

• To clarify roles and responsibilities of NSF Program Officers, Facility Managers (FMs), Observing Facilities Assessment Panel (OFAP) and Principal Investigators (PIs)

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

NSF DEPLOYMENT POOL (DP)

• Reserved “pot” of money (approx. 4 Million/year) exclusively dedicated to support field campaigns that use LAOF;

• Covers costs associated with deployment of LAOF (shipping, fuel, fees, leases, comms, per diem, housing, travel, …);

• Does not cover salaries (except temp hires and OT);• Does not cover PI support or expenses;• Does not cover maintenance;• Does not cover purchase of new instrumentation;• Does not cover expenses related to project-specific

support provided by CDS or FPS (former JOSS support).

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

Observing Facilities Assessment Panel (OFAP)

• NCAR-run Advisory Panel• 18 scientists/recognized experts in fields of

observational meteorology• Appointment based on recommendation by NSF

POs, FM, current OFAP members, interest• Meets twice per year (Spring, Fall)• 5 year term (approx. 6 mtgs)• Provides technical assessment of facility

requirements to FM, PIs and NSF POs; • Provides input concerning experiment design

and facility usage incl. resources allocations (flight hours, expendables etc)

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

FACILITIES COVERED BY DP• NSF/NCAR C-130• NSF/NCAR G-V• UWY King Air• NRL P-3 with NCAR ELDORA• Wyoming Cloud Radar (on KA as well as C-130) • CSU/CHILL Radar• NCAR SPOL Radar• NCAR Integrated Sounding Systems (ISS/MISS) & Multiple

Antenna Profiler (MAPR)• NCAR Integrated Surface Flux Systems (ISFS)• GPS Advanced Upper0Air Sounding Systems (GAUS,

MGAUS)• GPS Dropsonde (AVAPS) System

Not currently covered:• Driftsonde• Raman-shifted Eye-Safe Aerosol Lidar (REAL)

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW PROCEDURES IN 2004

New policy and procedures are now in effect and began to impact programs this fiscal year with T-PARC

Main Objectives:• Assists NSF program officers and the broader community

in more effective planning for field campaign• Assist FM in more effective planning of maintenance and

improvements in NSF supported facilities

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion Benefits

For PIs: • Increased lead time for planning of field campaigns, especially

complex programs;• More rigorous and thorough early review process early in the

planning process; • Formal proposal to NSF (SPO) provides a mechanism to support

project management

For NSF:• Better coordination with international and national partners;

representatives of other agencies may attend/present at OFAP (for clarity and to enhance overall understanding of proposed campaign)

• Holistic review of entire scientific and experimental design; many field campaigns involve critical facilities that were previously not reviewed along with the NSF facilities;

• Better understanding of total campaign cost

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

BenefitsFor EOL: • Increased lead time for planning of field campaigns,

especially complex programs;• FMs are finding it easier to schedule facility upgrades and

maintenance as well as new developments in between campaigns

Challenges• Some additional up-front work on all parts (cost

estimates, additional documentation…);• PIs have to be organized early on;• Increased trend in demand for facilities many years out

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion REQUEST PROCESS

Procedures are now different for “large” and “small” programs.> “Large” Programs:

Field Costs >$1,000K (multiple facilities), and/or Unusually Complex Programs,

and/or Programs with Int’l Partners> “Small” Programs – all the rest> NSF, in consultation with PIs and FMs, will

determine category, cost estimators also available from EOL website

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

SMALL PROGRAMS – PROCESS

• Contact/Inform NSF Program Manager • Provide Letter of Intent to EOL & NSF

> Name, Location, Dates, Facilities, Science> Inclusion in long term planning schedule

• Contact/Interact w. FMs / Facility Staff reg. requirements/ plans

• Prepare/Submit Facility Request to FMs;• Prepare/Submit OFAP science overview ppt to FMs;• Prepare/Submit NSF Proposal to NSF; science portion to

EOL/Univ;• For NCAR-led campaigns, prepare/submit Proposal to

EOL Director for mail scientific review

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Submit Facility Requestx Submit NSF Proposal

OFAPx NSF Final Action

1 Submit Facility Request15 Submit NSF Proposal

OFAPx NSF Final Action

FY 0

Implementation (8 m)

Implementation (8 m) Campaign Period

Campaign Period

FY-1FY-2

SMALL PROGRAMS -- Timeline

Requests possible bi-annually (1 Jul/1 Dec)15-21 months ahead of campaign8 months for implementation

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

Large Field Programs(>$1M or Complex)

• Two antecedent documents required: Scientific Program Overview (SPO) and Experimental Design Overview (EDO)> Required before submission of science

proposals> Required before submission of facility

requests

• SDO and EDO are formal documents and final decisions for science proposal submission(s) will be made based on their reviews

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM OVERVIEW

• Overall justification of the scientific program• Section D, Project Description

> Scientific Rationale - Holistic> Brief description of experimental design;> Relationship to prior similar efforts;> List of all facilities and PIs (irrespective of

source of support);• Formal submission of the SPO to NSF via

Fastlane; NSF will distribute SPO or equivalent document to relevant FMs and OFAP

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OVERVIEW• Overall concept of the experimental design, resource

needs and management. • Holistic• Structure

> Executive Summary> Scientific Rationale/Objectives> Experimental Design> Project Mgt (before and during field campaign)> Data Mgt> List of Facilities and PIs

• EDO submitted to NSF (Huning and NSF Program Officer); copy to relevant FM and to OFAP

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

LARGE PROGRAMS – PROCESS• Contact/Inform NSF Program Manager (summer/fall FY-3)• Provide Letter of Intent to EOL & NSF

> Name, Location, Dates, Facilities, Science> Inclusion in long term planning schedule

• Preliminary Meeting with FM(s) and facility staff • Obtain preliminary cost estimates from FM for inclusion in

SPO • Prepare/Submit SPO to NSF• Prepare/Submit EDO to NSF and EOL• Prepare/Submit .ppt overview to EOL• Prepare/Submit Facility Request to FM• Prepare/Submit NSF Proposal to NSF; science portion to

EOL/Univ.• Prepare updated .ppt overview to EOL

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion LARGE PROGRAMS -- Timeline

Only one review cycle per fiscal year.Scientific Review of SPO (completed by May FY-2) as well as individual

science proposals (completed by Jan FY-1)FY-2 SPO/EDO and Facility Request submission dates under discussion8 to 19 months for implementation

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

x Initial contact between PIs, NSF POs and FMs1 Deadline to request preliminary cost estimates from FM

15 Submit EDO15 Submit SPO

OFAP EDO Reviewx NSF decision to encourage or discourage program

1 Submit Facility Request (if encouraged)x Submit individual NSF Proposals

OFAP Facility Request Reviewx NSF Final Action on Scientific Proposals

Campaign Period

FY-2 FY 0

Implementation (8 m)

FY-3 FY-1

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

• FM Responsibilities:> Preparation of feasibilities and cost estimates

for facility requests and/or preparation of project assessments for EDOs;

> Preparation of Project Feasibility Presentations for OFAP Meeting

Note: Documents shared with NSF and PIs ahead of OFAP

• NSF Responsibilities:> Conduct of scientific review of all NSF

submitted proposals (SPOs as well as individual proposals);

The black hole – what happens in between the time a request is submitted and the

OFAP Meeting?

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

• EOL Responsibilities:> Where NCAR scientists have lead proposal,

EOL Director will oversee scientific review process and coordinate with appropriate NCAR Lab Director, NSF program office and Facility Managers

> Preparation of “Global Feasibility” (possible project combinations based on direct facility conflicts, resource limitations etc., shared with NSF)

> Planning/Conduct of all aspects of OFAP Meeting including sending out review material to OFAP

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

What happens at the OFAP Meeting?• Each OFAP member is asked for review preferences and

conflicts of interest before mtg;• Each OFAP member is assigned up to 4 OFAP requests in

their area of expertise before OFAP meeting, one of those as lead reviewer;

• Each project is introduced – w/o bias - by lead reviewer using scientific overview presentation provided by requesting PI, to entire OFAP, followed by feasibility analysis presentation by facility staff;

• Assigned review team presents their evaluation, followed by discussion involving all OFAP attendees (i.e., NSF, Facility staff, OFAP)

• Review team summarizes findings in writing and provides to FM

THE OFAP DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER A PROJECT WILL BE FUNDED OR NOT

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

• Summary shared with NSF and PIs • PIs are welcome to respond to NSF PO• NSF Program Officer makes final decision based

on scientific review of all NSF submitted proposals, feasibility analyses, OFAP recommendation and advice as well as budgetary and scheduling constraints.

• NSF PO informs PIs about decision• EOL provides Allocation Letter

What happens after the OFAP Meeting?

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion Questions from Workshop Attendees

• Out of cycle requests> Not covered by DP but NSF PO Program Funds> Challenging: schedule constraints, little adaptability

• Cost Recovery> On a non-interference basis with NSF programs> Also require some kind of scientific review> “Appropriate Use of the Facility”

• Multi-year Programs> Approval for several years possible> Mid-project review suggested> Will require cost adjustments

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

Questions?

http://www.eol.ucar.edu/deployment/request-info