Space Case Chapter 6 Summary

[Emmaline]

Eachtransportation agency has different approaches when addressing training needs. As technology deployments and operational strategies become more common in the transportation design space, the need for enhanced training is apparent. To maximize the broad expanse of transportation systems management and operations (TSMO) philosophy, TSMO training opportunities should be made available to all departments within a transportation agency. Managing the complexities of training for a broad group of people is difficult. The agencies interviewed for this case study shared several key lessons learned that support the advancement of training in their TSMO programs:

Training agency staff and regional partners on the role TSMO plays in transportation planning and development sets the stage for a successful TSMO program. Well-informed staff promote an agency's workforce capability and culture, which enables improved development of business processes and programming. The challenges and lessons learned provided in this case study can be used to develop the business case for TSMO training in other agency TSMO programs.

Each proposing organization that is new to NSF or has not had an active NSF assistance award within the previous five years should be prepared to submit basic organization and management information and certifications, when requested, to the applicable award-making division within the Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management (BFA). The requisite information is described in the NSF Prospective New Awardee Guide. The information contained in this Guide will assist the organization in preparing documents which NSF requires to conduct administrative and financial reviews of the organization. This Guide also serves as a means of highlighting the accountability requirements associated with Federal awards.

NSF will not tolerate research misconduct in proposing or performing research funded by NSF, reviewing research proposals submitted to NSF, or in reporting research results funded by NSF. For additional information, see Chapters I.D.3., IX.B., and XII.C.

Unless specified in a program solicitation, all proposals must comply with the proposal preparation instructions contained in Part I of the PAPPG or the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. Conformance will be strictly enforced unless a written deviation authorization is received in advance of proposal submission from the cognizant NSF Assistant Director/Office Head or designee. Such deviation authorizations must be uploaded as a single-copy document and include the name, date, and title of the NSF official, and the nature of the deviation authorized. (See section C.1 below for additional information.)

As part of the proposal preparation and submission process, all senior personnel identified on a proposal are required to submit information to assist reviewers and program staff in making informed recommendations and funding decisions. These disclosures are provided in the following proposal sections:

It is vital that submission of such disclosure information be taken seriously. The Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support documents require the individual to certify that the information provided is accurate, current, and complete. Violation of disclosure requirements may lead to criminal, civil, and/or administrative consequences as may be deemed appropriate based upon the particular facts of the violation. Violations will be thoroughly investigated by the NSF OIG and referred to criminal and/or civil offices within the Department of Justice, when warranted.

NSF will require senior personnel on potential awards to submit updated Current and Pending Support information prior to award, as well as part of the annual and final reporting process, when applicable.

Prior to submission, it is strongly recommended that proposers conduct an administrative review to ensure that proposals comply with the guidelines established in Part I of the PAPPG or the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide. The Proposal Preparation Checklist (Exhibit II-1) may be used to assist in this review. The checklist is not intended to be an all-inclusive repetition of the required proposal contents and associated proposal preparation guidelines. It is, however, meant to highlight certain critical items so they will not be overlooked when the proposal is prepared.

The requested proposal information noted above will be used to determine the applicable proposal preparation requirements that must be followed. Proposers are strongly advised to review the applicable sections of Part I of the PAPPG pertinent to the type of proposal being developed prior to submission.

For proposals submitted via Research.gov, the system will automatically paginate a proposal. Each section of the proposal that is uploaded as a file should leave out page numbering unless otherwise directed within Research.gov.

A font size of less than 10 points may be used for mathematical formulas or equations, figures, tables, or diagram captions and when using a Symbol font to insert Greek letters or special characters. Other fonts not specified above, such as Cambria Math, may be used for mathematical formulas, equations, or when inserting Greek letters or special characters. PIs are cautioned, however, that the text must still be readable.

The guidelines specified above establish the minimum font size requirements; however, PIs are advised that readability is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate font for use in the proposal. Use of a small font size makes it difficult for reviewers to read the proposal; consequently, the use of small fonts not in compliance with the above guidelines may be grounds for NSF to return the proposal without review. Adherence to font size and line spacing requirements also is necessary to ensure that no proposer will have an unfair advantage, by using smaller font or line spacing to provide more text in the proposal.

Certain categories of information that are submitted in conjunction with a proposal are for "NSF Use Only." As such, the information is not provided to reviewers for use in the review of the proposal. With the exception of NSF-specific proposal certifications, these documents should be submitted in Research.gov. A summary of each of these categories follows:

Proposers may include a list of suggested reviewers (including email address and organizational affiliation) who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal. Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not to review the proposal. These suggestions are optional. Exhibit II-2 contains information on conflicts of interest that may be useful in preparation of this list.

The cognizant Program Officer handling the proposal considers the suggestions and may contact the proposer for further information. The decision regarding whether to use these suggestions, however, remains with the Program Officer.

Government-wide certifications and representations are provided by the proposer on an annual basis in SAM (see PAPPG Chapter I.G.2). Note that the box for "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities" must be checked on the Cover Sheet if, pursuant to the Lobbying certification provided in SAM, submission of the SF LLL is required. The AOR must use the "Authorized Organizational Representative function" to sign and submit the proposal, including NSF-specific proposal certifications. It is the proposing organization's responsibility to assure that only properly authorized individuals perform this function.[7]

The AOR is required to complete certifications regarding the accuracy and completeness of statements contained in the proposal, as well as to certify that the organization (or individual) agrees to accept the obligation to comply with award terms and conditions.

Two sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 USC 4012a and 4106) bar Federal agencies from giving financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes in any area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having special flood hazards unless the:

By signing the certification pages, AORs for prospective recipients located in FEMA-designated special flood hazard areas are certifying that adequate flood insurance has been or will be obtained in the following situations:

Prospective recipients should contact their local government or a Federally-insured financial institution to determine what areas are identified as having special flood hazards and the availability of flood insurance in their community.

The AOR is required to complete a certification that the institution has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduate students, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, faculty, and other senior personnel who will be supported by NSF to conduct research and that such training addresses mentor training and mentorship.

The AOR is required to complete a certification that there is organizational support for the proposal as required by Section 526 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. This support extends to the portion of the proposal developed to satisfy the broader impacts review criterion as well as the intellectual merit review criterion, and any additional review criteria specified in the solicitation. Organizational support will be made available, as described in the proposal, in order to address the broader impacts and intellectual merit activities to be undertaken.

The AOR is required to complete a certification that the organization will be or is in compliance with all aspects of the United States Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern.

For each proposal that proposes to conduct research off-campus or off site, the AOR must complete a certification that the organization has a plan in place for this proposal regarding safe and inclusive working environments. See Chapter II.E.9 for additional information.

3a8082e126