Grants and Research at NSF & Government-wide Grants Initiatives

1. Grants.gov and Research.gov at NSF & Government-wide Grants Initiatives Andrea NorrisDivision Director IRM/DIS Mary SantonastassoDivision Director BFA/DIAS November 9, 2006

2. Government-wide GrantsInitiatives

3. Background • Grants.gov • Government wide Policy and Implementation Governing Structures for e-Grants Initiatives • Grants.gov’s Purpose and Goals • Current and Future Status • How NSF has Implemented Grants.gov

4. Background (Cont.) • Grants Management Line of Business (GMLOB) • What is the Grants Management Line of Business? • GMLOB Purpose and Goals • Current and Future Status • NSF’s Diverse Roles in the GMLOB: Leading and Implementing

5. The Federal GrantStreamlining Program National Science and Technology Policy Council The Chief Financial Officers Council Committee on Science Grants Policy Committee National Science Foundation and Energy Co-Chairs Research Business Models Subcommittee P.L. 106-107 PMO HHS Pre-Award Work Group Department of Defense Chair Mandatory Work Group Vacant Chair Post-Award Work Group DOC/NOAA Chair Audit Oversight Work Group HHS Chair Training and Oversight Work Group HHS Chair Payment System Issues NSF Chair Compliance Supplement Team HHS Chair Training Curriculum Team NSF Chair Interagency Committee on Debarment and Suspension EPA Chair Reporting Forms Team NOAA Chair Audit Quality Team Education Chair Competencies Team Education and DOI Co-Chairs CCR Team EPA Chair Audit Policy Issues NSF and Education Co-Chairs Cost Principles Team OMB Chair Certification Team DOE Chair FAC Study (next steps) Energy Chair Indirect Cost Uniform Guidance Handbook Team HHS Chair Database Team Chair Improper Payment Issues DOT Chair

6. OMB Governance Grants Policy Committee Grants Executive Board P.L. 106-107 Work Groups Grants.gov PMO GMLOB PMO Work Groups ACF Consortium DoED Consortium NSF Consortium Execution Teams Service Providers Future Consortium Future Consortium Grants.gov Find and Apply Organizational Structure Key Existing entity To be launched Governing body Execution team

7. What is Grants.gov? • A single source for finding grant opportunities • A standardized manner of locating and learning more about funding opportunities • A single, secure and reliable source for applying for Federal grants online • A simplified grant application process with reduction of paperwork • A unified interface for all agencies to announce their grant opportunities, and for all grant applicants to find and apply for those opportunities

8. Grants.govCurrent Status and Next Steps • All 26 grant-making agencies are required to post all discretionary grant programs in the Grants.gov Find • OMB has directed agencies to post in Grants.gov Apply: • 75% of their funding opportunities in FY 2006; • 100% of their funding opportunities in FY 2007.

9. Grants.gov at NSF

10. NSF Grants.gov Experience • Started Integration in June 2005 • Proposal submitted via Grants.gov look the same as a proposal submitted via FastLane to programs and reviewers • FY 05 • 100% Posted on FIND • 25% Posted on APPLY (25% goal) • FY 06 • 100% Posted on FIND • 80% Posted on APPLY (75% goal) • FY 07 • 100% Posted on FIND • 100% Posted on APPLY (100% goal)

11. NSF Grants.gov Experience (Cont.) • NSF has received 597 application submissions through Grants.gov since June 2005. • This count includes applications submitted to: • Four programs requiring submission through Grants.gov; and • 174 programs in FY 06 where submission through Grants.gov was optional. • When submission through Grants.gov was an option, 1% of the applicants chose to submit through Grants.gov. • Of the 597 submissions, 325 applications were successfully inserted into FastLane (54% success rate). • The 272 applications or 46 percent of applications that were not successful required the applicant to correct problems and resubmit.

12. Success Factors • Outreach to the community • NSF’s Grants.gov Application Guide includes step-by-step instructions • Help Desk Support – received almost 100 calls/e-mails requesting assistance • 35 training sessions to NSF staff given by DIS and Policy office

13. Lessons Learned • Applicants submitting applications with attachments that are not in PDF. • The PI or Co-PI typed their name differently in various portions of the application and the software could not tell if this was the same person or another individual. • Problems with organizational registration if institution and its branches share the same DUNS • Mac and UNIX issues – PureEdge solution being tested • Applicants had varying success in submitting pro-posals, some taking as many as four attempts before successful insertion into FastLane.

14. Grants.gov Implementation 7. NSF downloads submitted application packages and validates and inserts the information into FastLane 1. Applicant* navigates to Grants.gov Website 2. Applicant searches for program announcements 5. AOR submits application package to Grants.gov 3. Applicant finds a program announcement and downloads application package (PureEdge forms) and instructions 4. Applicant completes application package 6. Grants.gov sends confirmation to AOR * Applicant or Researcher 8. NSF sends confirmation to AOR and PI = NSF Activity

15. NSF’s Grant Application Package • SF 424 (R&R) Forms • NSF Mandatory Forms • NSF Cover Page • NSF CheckList • NSF Optional Forms • NSF Deviation Authorization • NSF Suggested Reviewers • NSF FastLane System Registration • Coming Soon… • Biological Sciences Classification Form • Division of Undergraduate Education

16. NSF Implementation in 2007 • Those programs designated required in 06 will remain required in 07 • Unless otherwise specified, optional submission for the vast majority of NSF programs • Will not be used until a Grants.gov solution has been developed for: • Separately submitted collaborative proposals • Fellowship programs that require submission of reference letters

17. Required to be submitted through Grants.gov in 2007 • Antarctic Artists and Writers (OPP) • Scientific Computing Research Environments for the Mathematical Sciences (MPS) • Living Stock Collections (BIO) • Advanced Learning Technologies (CISE) • CEDAR, GEM, and SHINE Postdoctoral Research (GEO) • Research in Disability Education (EHR) • Infrastructure Materials Applications and Structural Mechanics (ENG) • Geography and Regional Science (SBE)

18. Not Accepted Through Grants.gov • NSF also does not accept applications through Grants.gov for: • Submission of Letters of Intent and Preliminary Proposals • Changed/Corrected Applications • Revisions • Continuations • Supplemental Funding Requests

19. What is GMLOB? • A government-wide solution to support end-to-end grants management activities that promote citizen access, customer service, and agency financial and technical stewardship. • System consolidation • Interoperability • Streamlined processes • Standardized nomenclature • Common interface touchpoints

20. Why GMLOB? • Transparency and efficiency in the grants decision making process • Improved access to grants-related programmatic and financial information • Enhanced ability to report on award-related accomplishments • Improved post award monitoring and oversight

21. How? • Grants management community will process grants in a decentralized way using common business processes supported by shared technical support services.

22. Roles and Responsibilities - Implementation Roles Responsibilities

23. FY 2006 Activities

24. Current Status • Department of Education (ED) • ED’s core competency is administering and managing thousands of grants that provide educational and vocational opportunities for all citizens. • ED’s approach is unique in that consortium members will have the opportunity to participate in the design of a new, full lifecycle, end-to-end grants management system from the ground up. • ED’s system will be built to work with a large volume of information and transactions suitable for larger grant-making agencies.

25. Current Status (Cont.) • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration for Children and Families (ACF) • Seven agencies and over 80 grant programs already use HHS ACF’s Center of Excellence (COE), including USDA FSIS, HHS HRSA, and Treasury CDFI. • HHS ACF’s systems incorporate all 14 GMLOB grant award processes both for awarding agencies and recipients as well as extensive and flexible post-award reporting mechanisms. • HHS ACF’s systems can manage all types of grants and cooperative agreements, including “earmarks” and non-competitive projects.

26. Current Status (Cont.) • National Science Foundation (NSF) • NSF will offer the Research.gov web portal that leverages its experience with Grants.gov and the Research and Related (R&R) initiative to provide access to functionality that benefits the research community. • Research.gov focuses on the needs of the grantees by providing them with greater access to the government, streamlined functionality, and flexibility to account for differing agency research missions.

27. Research.gov at NSF

28. Grants Management Line of Business (GMLoB) NSF GMLoB CONSORTIUM TIMELINE • 1st round: NSF picked, along with HHS/ACF, and Dept of Ed. • NSF does market research, submits business case • charter consortium • recruit agency partners • sign MOUs • NSF submits declaration of intent • will study being a consortium lead • deploy services 2007 2008 2005 2006

29. NSF GMLoB Consortium:Why Lead? NSF Benefits Research Community Benefits

30. NSF Environmental Considerations Community Needs and Expectations Funding and Other Resource Constraints Political Pressures Research Grants Management and Administration Mission Impact Agency Needs and Priorities Increasing Complexity Government-wide Policy and Standards

31. NSF GMLoB ConsortiumGuiding Principles • Research community must directly benefit from this initiative. • The approach will be deliberate, modular, conservative, and research community focused. • Low cost, high impact offerings that deliver value to grantees will be implemented first. • Capital investments in IT infrastructure will be minimized; intellectual investment in FastLane will be fully leveraged. • Services offered must provide a measurable benefit to NSF. • The initiative must focus on improvement; cost avoidance, not just cost savings. • Whatever we do, we are going to do it well.

32. Research.gov Concept NSF will lead a research-oriented consortium based upon GMLoB goals and the business needs of both partnering agencies and the grantee community. • a collaborative agency partnership will govern the consortium and its resources • Research.gov portal to provide a menu of services for conducting electronic grants business with Federal research agencies • focuses on the needs of grantees while providing maximum flexibility to agencies • recover O&M costs using a fee-for-service arrangement

33. Research.gov Portal Research.gov Portal is A new Web portalfor research institutions to conduct business with Federal research agencies • Initial capabilities may include: • Proposal status • Project reports • Federal financial reporting and payments • PI profiles • Research Focused “Find and Apply” services

34. Research.gov Timeline TIMELINE • GMLoB Pilot with USDA/CSREES deployed • Pilot demonstrates joint grant application status • Gained both technical and business lessons-learned Conceptual service rollout plan • Establish hosting environment • Pilot portal and initial set of services • Portal and initial set of services deployed as production system 2008 2006 2007

35. Research.gov Research.gov is important • Continues our leadership in advancing eGrants management initiatives • Allows us to continue to evolve our grants management systems and work processes • Tremendous support in community for improved “e-services” tailored to research community Current Status • CSREES Pilot • OMB 300 Business Case Future Initiatives • Develop Research.gov portal • Release of grant application status module involving 2 or more research agencies

36. Research.gov (Cont.) • Leverages next generation of FastLane and GMLoB to fulfill vision of a single Web portal • Provides grantee community greater access to the government and streamlined functionality • Allows federal research agencies to sign up and offer services to their grantees using Research.gov tools • Uses portal approach for maximum flexibility (helps account for differing agency strategies) • Allows the best tools to be offered from any agency in the consortia  • Leverages proven functionality and expertise with minimal capital investment

37. FY 2007 Goals

38. Next Steps • Institutionalize GMLOB initiative government-wide • Deliver quality service to the grantee community • Establish and maintain strong service provider/customer partnerships

39. FY 2007 Priorities • Standards and Streamlining • Develop standard roles and taxonomy • Define FM/GM interface standards • Define functions and subfunctions • Develop strategy for common post-award reporting services • Communications and Outreach • Execute communication strategy to communicate GMLOB status and direction to grant-making agencies • Migrating Agency Support • Provide migrating agency guidance • Identify Full Landscape of Consortia Leads

40. To name additional Consortia Leads that will provide grant managementtechnical services to the 26 grant-making agencies. • To give the 26 grant-making agencies a voice in recommending additional Consortia Leads that will provide grant management technical services to them. • Transparent process for recommending consortia • Recommendation based on ability of recommended consortia to fill existing gaps in the consortium landscape • Viable consortia with named partner(s) 9/22/06 Recommendation submitted to OMB February 2007 OMB announces new Consortia Leads FY 2007Consortia Recommendation Scope Outcomes Key Dates

41. Backup Slides

42. Federal Grants Milestones

43. Current Status