Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science (ROSES) – 2016

Agenda

• What’s new in ROSES-2016 •  Esp. Redaction of Salary and overhead •  But also other things such as • High End Computing (HEC) form • More relaxed rules on CVs and C&P • Division specific major changes •  Such as DMPs in PSD • What’s new in the guidebook for proposers

What’s New in ROSES-2016 •  See Section I(c) of the ROSES Summary of

Solicitation (SoS) for what’s new and also at •  http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/#1 •  FAQ specifically on budgets is at:

http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

•  FAQ specifically on data management plans is at http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/dmp-faq-roses/ However, see Section 3.5.1.of C.1 and read the program elements carefully. Some, such as PDART C.7, evaluate it as part of merit and have different requirements.

•  http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/prc-faq-roses/ for continuing PRC restrictions.

What’s New in ROSES-2016: Part I Redaction •  All salaries and overheads are included in the cover

page budgets but omitted from the body of the proposals and will not be seen by reviewers.

•  Since all costs, including salaries and overhead of NASA civil servants, must be included in the web cover page budget, this means no separately uploaded NASA CS budgets.

•  Funded NASA civil servant Co-Investigators on proposals submitted by other organizations must share their full and total costs to the proposing organization so that it may be included in their budget.

•  See Section IV of the ROSES SOS.

Part I Redaction, cont.

•  The costs of personnel time and overhead from your organization will appear in Sections A and B, will be redacted (hidden from peer reviewers).

•  Subawards/Partner awards that include labor and overhead costs must also be hidden, so Section F lines 5, 8 & 9 will also be redacted automatically.

•  Examples appear two slides down and also at http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

•  Center Co-Is must provide their costs to proposing organizations because it must be in cover pages so the total is correct, like an AO.

Part I Redaction, cont. •  Funds for Co-Is at non- governmental organizations

will pass through Centers, e.g., as a cooperative agreement to a university or research non profit.

•  Funds for Co-Is at government labs will not pass through your organization, they will be split off and sent directly from NASA HQ.

•  Either way, they go in Section F line 5. Subawards/Consortium/ Contractual Costs, or in lines 8 or 9, which are customizable.

•  None of this is new. What is new is that its absolutely positively crucial that the cover pages be correct and complete because $ for salary and overhead will not appear in the detailed budget in the proposal.

Part I Redaction, cont.

From http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

There are three lines for Co-Is at other organizations. First, put funds for Co-I government organizations in lines 8 & 9. Put the funds that pass through your organization in line 5.

Redacted{

Redacted{

Part I Redaction, cont.

From http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

I used Section F line 5, the generic subaward line, for my $60K Sub contract to AMNH, not that you can tell, because I could not modify the description of line 5. That this is for AMNH will only become apparent later when you read the actual proposal. Next, I used customizable line 8 for the $150K that will be sent directly to my Co-I at Naval Research Lab and I entered "NRL portion of this award" in the description. In line 9 I put the GSFC portion of the award and labeled it appropriately. When the proposal is evaluated by the peer review panel they will not see any of the $ numbers in the Personnel Sections or in Section F lines 5, 8 & 9, all of that will be automatically redacted.

Part I Redaction, cont.

From http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

If you have more government organizations then there are lines then please combine, indicate it in the form and upload a separate detailed "Total budget" file . You can always do that anyway, but you really must in this case

What’s New in 2016: Part 2 DMPs •  Data Management Plans (DMPs) are still required for

most proposals to NASA. •  If you are planning to submit a proposal to the

Astrophysics, Earth Science or Heliophysics Divisions, (or E.3 the cross division Exoplanets Research Program) then the FAQ from ROSES-2015 is still good for you. SARA will update it sometime in spring 2016.

•  Bottom line, for everyone other than Planetary the DMP is a short statement in a plain text box on the NSPIRES cover pages (unless you are told otherwise in the program element).

What’s New in 2016: Part 2 DMPs •  DMPs do not change the grade of the proposal, but

funding may be contingent on a revised DMP. •  DMPs are not part of the page limited technical/

scientific part of the proposal, they are separate. •  Planetary Science Division calls (anything in Appendix

C and E.4, Habitable Worlds) require a 2-page DMP in the proposal, see Section 3.5.1.of C.1 and read the FAQ that will appear on the NSPIRES web page of the program element to which you plan to submit a Step-2 proposal.

What’s New in ROSES-2016 cont. •  CVs for collaborators are permitted, though

discouraged in general. •  The applications process for HEC time has changed,

see Section I (d) of ROSES. •  Current and Pending Support is not required for

Students or Foreign Co-Investigators (Co-Is) •  Current and Pending Support is required only for Co-

Is at or above 10% of their time (0.1 FTE) not 10% of the total time requested.

What’s New in ROSES-2016 cont. •  There is a new section I(h) in the Summary of

Solicitation, called Order of Precedence: The Guidebook vs. ROSES vs. Program Elements which tells you what to do if ROSES SOS, the guidebook, and or an individual program element disagree: Program element > SOS > Guidebook.

•  FAQs should merely elaborate, not surprise you or contravene a rule in the program element.

•  A couple of new things that procurement required we add such as I(i) Access to NASA Facilities/Systems and a paragraph about FAPIIS on page 34 (don’t ask).

•  As always lots of changes in the program elements

What’s New Part 3 changes program elements •  There will be three new Program Elements in Helio

(B.8-10, now TBD) and B.2 (H-SR) will use a "binding" two-step submission process.

•  Planetary Overview (C.1) has been rewritten, Program Element Habitable Worlds is now cross-division (E.4), and C.19 New Frontiers Data Analysis will be added via Amendment. Much of Appendix C now invokes more stringent DMP requirements.

•  Astro has two new Program Elements D.10 and 11. •  Earth has lots of changes, as always, read A.1

Appendix C Planetary •  There are special rules for proposals submitted to

Appendix C, Planetary Science (including habitable worlds, which is now cross division E.4)

•  Please read Section 3.5.1.of C.1 regarding submitting DMPs as part of the main proposal (as opposed to on the cover pages).

•  DMPs for Planetary Science must be placed in an up to 2-page special section of the proposal, entitled "Data Management Plan".

•  Exception: Planetary Data Archiving, Restoration and Tools (PDART, Program Element C.7) Program Element includes the data management discussion in the body of the proposal

Change to the Guidebook for Proposers

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/ There weren’t any big changes to the guidebook this year, but we are planning a major revision for next year. Many small changes often making the guidebook closer to ROSES. Section 2.2 "Proposal formats" was revised to add clarifying language on spacing, font size etc. now matches ROSES Data management plan (see section 2.3.4) was added to the checklist. New Section (2.3.4) on Increasing Access to Research Results Current and pending not required for student or foreign Co-Is

Reminders, things continuing from past years •  Table 1 is no longer a repetition of the goals and

objectives in the science plan, its now a checklist for proposers

•  Added I(g) "Successor, Resubmitted, Multiple and Duplicate Proposals". This section includes restrictions on submissions i.e., vs. multiple proposals and (Appendix B) duplicate proposals (Appendices B & C Heliophysics and Planetary).

•  China restrictions still apply, see http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/prc-faq-roses/

•  C.3-C.5 and C.10* require an explicit relevance statement

Please Review Proposals Please review proposals when called on if you possibly can and are not conflicted. Peer review is at the core of our imperfect but democratic and successful process.

Thank you

http://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2016 http://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2016table2 http://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2016table3

http://sara.nasa.gov sara@nasa.gov

Relevance

C.3-C.5 and C.10* require an explicit relevance statement, which will be collected in a mandatory (4000-character) text box on the cover pages via the NSPIRES web interface. Unless otherwise stated in the call, relevance of the proposed work is judged based on whether the work proposed is deemed to be relevant, independent of whether or not it includes an overt, clear and direct statement of relevance. That is, unless otherwise stated in the call, no proposal will be returned as noncompliant for lack of a relevance section or statement, but inclusion of a relevance section or statement is no guarantee that the proposal will be judged relevant. A few program elements in Appendix C do require an explicit relevance section. *Read your individual program elements carefully. This list may be out of date when you read it later.

Relevance C.5 EXOBIOLOGY NOTICE: This Program Element requires an explicit statement of relevance, which will be collected in a mandatory (4000-character) text box on the cover pages via the NSPIRES web interface. See Section 2.1, below.

…the omission of this section is sufficient reason for a proposal to be returned without review. The relevance discussion must explicitly refer to this program element and the section of the solicitation to which the proposal is responsive. If the proposed work is close in scope to research covered by any other program element, this discussion must also justify why it is more relevant to this program element than that other program element. This discussion may not be used to address the proposal’s intrinsic merit, budget justification, or any other factor that remains in the 15-page main body, or any other section, of the proposal.

2015 Change to the Guidebook for Proposers

The big change was that the summary table of work effort moved out of the budget section and into its own section. This, along with a little statement I got from NSF, allows universities to be more honest about the time that the proposer actually intends to devote to the effort. There have been a number of complaints about this in past review panels. "...any time included that is not funded by NASA is not considered cost sharing, as defined in 2 CFR § 215.23. This table of work effort, which is not in either the page limited technical/scientific section nor in the budget, is merely a reporting of all of the planned work, funded by NASA or not. This is distinct from the page limited technical/scientific proposal, which should describe what work each team member will be doing."

Publication side of the increasing access

That same NASA memo that discusses data management plan also talks about increasing access to as accepted (i.e., post peer-review) manuscript versions of your papers that come from our awards. Our approach is to follow the NIH PubMed precedent. • As accepted (i.e., post peer-review) manuscripts • This only applies to peer reviewed documents • 12 months after publication • Grantees will be responsible • Some journals insert them automatically • There will be space for data to be archived in PMC with the manuscripts.