Please see the full solicitation for complete information about the funding opportunity. Below is a summary assembled by the Research & Innovation Office (RIO).

Program Summary

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is soliciting proposals for managing the operation and maintenance of the National Geophysical Facility (hereafter referred to as NGF) an NSF-funded major facility. The NGF is designed to enable the research community to ask, and address, questions about a variety of Earth processes from local to global scales. NGF will operate global and regional networks of sensors; provide a lending library of instrumentation and support services to enable PI-led field experiments; support archiving, quality control, and delivery of geophysical data and data product development; and provide education, outreach, workforce development, and community engagement activities that serve a wide range of audiences. NGF will be a single facility, with a single operator that will succeed NSF's current geophysical facilities, the Seismological Facility for the Advancement of GEoscience (SAGE) and the Geodetic Facility for the Advancement of GEoscience (GAGE).

The award recipient will work closely with NSF and the scientific community to ensure that NGF capabilities support, and advance, Earth Sciences and related disciplines. In cooperation with NSF, and within available resources, the recipient will plan and execute a viable, coherent, and inclusive program to: (1) streamline the management and operations of existing geophysical facility capabilities into one consolidated geophysical facility; (2) enhance existing facility capabilities in instrumentation, data services and cyberinfrastructure; and (3) implement a bold vision to broaden participation and foster a culture of equity and inclusion in the Earth Sciences and related disciplines.

The NSF Division of Earth Sciences (EAR) in the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) has primary responsibility for the programmatic oversight of NGF and activities will be coordinated with the Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE), Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences (AGS), and Office of Polar Programs (OPP).

A single award will be made as a cooperative agreement with a duration of five years. NSF may renew the award for an additional five years, subject to availability of funds, the recipient's satisfactory performance, and review of a cost proposal for the second 5-year period. NSF's decision will be informed by the National Science Board Statement on Recompetition of Major Facilities ( or its successor).

Deadlines

CU Internal Deadline: 11:59pm MT November 6, 2023

Sponsor Letter of Intent: 5:00pm MT December 1, 2023

Sponsor Full Proposal: 5:00pm MT June 13, 2024

Internal Application Requirements (all in PDF format)

  • Project Description (3 pages maximum): The Project Description section of the proposal should address the capabilities of the proposing organization to manage the operations and maintenance of NGF with respect to the areas described in Section II D of the NSF solicitation. The content of Project Description should address how the facility will enable the science priorities outlined in the NASEM Earth in Time, SZ4D, and Near Surface Geophysics reports, as well as other community documents and must demonstrate that input from the community served by NGF has been solicited and incorporated. The Project Description must contain a separate section labeled Broader Impacts.
  • PI Curriculum Vitae
  • Budget Overview (1 page maximum): A basic budget outlining project costs is sufficient; detailed OCG budgets are not required.

To access the online application, visit:

Eligibility

The Principal Investigator (PI) must be an employee of the proposing organization.

Limited Submission Guidelines

An organization may only submit 1 proposal as the lead. There is no limit on the number of proposals on which an organization can be included as a sub-recipient.

Award Information

Amount: $223,000,000

Estimated Number of Awards: 1

Review Criteria

Review criteria will also include assessment of the quality and extent to which the proposal addresses the following:

1. Scientific capability

  • How well will the proposed facility capabilities advance the community priorities articulated in community reports, like the NASEM Earth in Time, SZ4D, and Near Surface Geophysics community reports?
  • How clearly has the proposer demonstrated input from the broader Earth Science community and other research communities that would utilize the facility?
  • How have the proposers engaged other federal agencies that would utilize the facility?
  • To what extent does the proposal balance innovation with the support of existing capabilities to best meet the needs of the research community?

2. Management capability

  • How well does the proposal demonstrate a streamlined, efficient, responsive, and cost-effective management strategy for the consolidated geophysical facility?
  • Is there a coherent and effective leadership, management, and organizational structure and how appropriate are staffing levels?
  • Are the duties of each staff position clear and is the need for each position justified? Are the salaries and time commitments appropriate and well justified?
  • Does the proposal outline sufficient financial and audit controls?
  • What is the quality of the plan for risk management for the proposed activities? Does the risk management plan adequately address budget and other project risks?
  • What is the quality of the plan for performance management and self-assessment?
  • Is there a coherent and effective plan for recruiting, sustaining, and retaining a well-qualified and diverse workforce?
  • How well does the proposal demonstrate a vision for developing or sustaining partnerships that enhance the scientific benefit and cost-effectiveness of NGF?

3. Operational capability

General

  • Are the planned activities justified and adequate for the operations of the proposed facility?
  • How strong is the lifecycle management plan for instrumentation and data services infrastructure, cyberinfrastructure, and software?
  • How well does the proposal demonstrate an understanding of essential Operations Management activities such as those related to subaward and subcontract formation and administration, asset tracking and management, environmental, safety and health issues, reporting, budgeting, and project controls?
  • How well justified are any proposed subaward and subcontract arrangements for managing NGF operations and maintenance?

Additional criteria for Instrumentation Services Operations

  • How efficient and achievable is the vision for streamlined operations of regional and global networks of sensors?
  • Does the proposal include a plan for reducing long-term operations costs of these networks leveraging new, lower-power technological solutions?
  • How well justified are any proposed changes to existing sensor networks?
  • How well will the portfolio of instrumentation proposed for the portable instrument program address a wide cross section of scientific priorities?
  • Are there adequate descriptions of the hardware and software to be maintained and operated, and how this would be accomplished?
  • How well does the proposal demonstrate a vision for recapitalizing and refurbishing instrumentation and hardware within existing budget limitations, including incorporating community input and engaging necessary suppliers, to ensure that the facility can facilitate cutting-edge science?
  • How qualified is the proposing organization to appropriately staff and execute the scope required by OCE?

Additional criteria for Data Services Operations

  • How strong is the vision for streamlined operations of a consolidated, unified geophysical Data Services and Cyberinfrastructure program?
  • How likely is the proposed portfolio of Data Services and Cyberinfrastructure activities to enable the research community to address current and future goals?
  • How well is the facility Data Services and Cyberinfrastructure program aligned with the portfolio of instrumentation proposed?
  • How well does the proposal demonstrate an understanding of the current effective practices for data management, identity management, and cybersecurity, as well as implementation of those practices?
  • How well does the proposal facilitate access to advanced computing and open-source software capabilities to maximize the value of NGF data products?
  • How well does the proposal facilitate interoperability with other community data resources?
  • How well does the proposal indicate alignment with open science best practices?
  • How effectively do proposed training and workforce development activities build capacity for a broad range of individuals and communities to utilize NGF data products and associated computing services?

Additional criteria for Education, Outreach, Workforce Development, and Community Engagement

  • How well justified is the portfolio of proposed activities for education, outreach, workforce development, and community engagement, and how well aligned are the activities to the priority areas stated in this solicitation?
  • How likely are the proposed education, outreach, workforce development, and community engagement activities to advance broadening participation of the full spectrum of diverse talents that society has to offer?
  • How well does the proposal demonstrate that the recipient will take specific actions to develop a culture of inclusion across the facility's proposed activities?

4. Proposed Budget

  • Is the proposed budget appropriate, clear, detailed, well justified, and developed in accordance with section 4.2 of the NSF RIG, the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide (GAO-09-3SP) and 2 CFR 搂200 of the Uniform Guidance, Subpart E, Cost Principles?
  • Does the proposal include specific activities associated with the work to be performed and the activity-based resource descriptions?
  • Are project resources effectively allocated to all personnel tasks, activities, equipment and material and supply costs?
  • Are the assumptions that have been used to develop the budget clearly identified and defined? Have all uncertainties in the project scope and budget been identified?
  • How reasonable and sufficient are the estimated costs and justification for each WBS element of NGF operations and maintenance during the performance period?
  • Is the proposed WBS Dictionary aligned with NGF operations and maintenance activities?
  • How well does the proposed budget account for cost drivers such as operational risks and inflation?

5. Broadening Participation Capability and Safe and Inclusive Work Environment Plan

  • How well does the Broadening Participation Capability statement address the proposing organization's experience and capabilities in broadening participation in science and engineering, considering the organization's strategies, activities, population(s) on which those activities focus and assessment approach and/or outcomes.
  • Is there a compelling plan (including the procedures, training, and communication processes) to establish, nurture, and maintain inclusive off-site working environments?
  • Does the proposed plan identify and adequately address the unique challenges for the team and the specific off-campus or off-site settings?
  • Are the organizational mechanisms to be used for reporting, responding to, and resolving issues of harassment, bullying, and physical and emotional safety, should they occur, clearly outlined?

6. Transition Plan

Reviewers will evaluate the Transition Plan to assess the proposing organization's ability to assume full responsibility for the management and operation of NGF upon completion of the transition period, without degradation of facility capabilities. The proposal should address applicable elements of the transition of management and operations of NGF, taking into consideration personnel resources, physical and intellectual property, and subaward/contractual commitments.