Applicant Checklist

Proposal Format

All pages should be single-spaced and set in 12-point font with one-inch margins on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper. The proposal should be submitted as a PDF file. It must be dated and display page numbers. The final proposal must include the following items that are described below in the checklist. Please refer to the FY 23 Annual Notice of Funding through Grants.Gov to see the full proposal guide and instructions for how to apply with the most robust information for each topic.

Project Narrative

Example headline

Title Page

  1. Project title
  2. PI: name, title, organization, telephone number, office address, email address
  3. Each investigator: name, title, organization, telephone number, email address
  4. Non-PI Institutional representative: name, title, organization, telephone number, email address
  5. Competition and project period
  6. Requested funding for each institution For joint projects with multiple institutions, the names of all institutions along with their PI information and total requested funding for each annual period for each institution must appear on the title page of each of the separate applications. A second title page that does not count against the proposal page limit may be added to accommodate the information. for each annual period

Download Title Page Template (.pdf)

Example headline

Abstract

  1. Project title, PIs and investigators, and affiliations
  2. Plain-language project abstract Include the primary project products/outputs, intended impacts/benefits/outcome, relevance to the NOFO priority(ies)
Example headline

Problem Statement

  1. Identify the problem and/or the opportunity, and its relevance to one or more of the specific NOFO priorities identified in Section I.B.
  2. If appropriate, concisely cite results from prior relevant research and/or previously-funded NOAA projects.
  3. If applicable, provide the NOAA project award number, title, and period of performance for any previously-funded NOAA projects that contributed to the proposed research concept. 
  4. Indicate if a NOAA Transition Plan has been developed for earlier work on this topic.
Example headline

Products/Outputs

  1. Identify the primary planned products/outputs.
  2. Provide the current/starting and target/project-completion readiness level (RL) with an explanation of how each level was determined. 
Example headline

Impacts/Benefits/Outcomes

  1. Identify the planned impacts/benefits/outcomes (e.g. improvements in detection, accuracy, reliability, coverage, latency, lead time, skill, processing speed, efficiency, cost, knowledge).
  2. Identify which specific weather enterprise group or organization is expected to be the ultimate recipient(s) and beneficiary(ies) (end-users) of these project outcomes (e.g., local weather or river forecast offices, a national operational forecast center, community code repository, a state mesonet, a commercial organization, etc.).
  3. Provide any metrics or success indicators as appropriate. 
Example headline

Schedule

Provide a table or chart with a schedule for completing key milestones, products, and expected progression of RLs.

Example headline

Methods and Activities

Concisely describe the key activities and methods that will be conducted to successfully complete the project. This may include information on model frameworks, simulations, HPC availability, data collection, analysis, collaborations needed (including needed operational collaborations for transition), and necessary travel Applicants are encouraged to consider contingencies in the event of scenarios that restrict travel, such as those resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. (associated with data collection, project meetings, testbed planning meetings, testbed experiments, and the presentation of results at scientific conferences as appropriate).

If applicable, the methods section should also include information on the Institutional Review Board Applicants submitting proposals that involve the use of human test subjects should state so clearly in their Methods, and also include appropriate milestones in the schedule for completion of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), for High-performance computing The availability of HPC the project has access to ensure success , and for use of Testbeds Any proposed Clearly specify whether the proposed work will involve testing in one of the NOAA Testbeds or Proving Grounds .

Example headline

Outreach and Education

  1. Describe how the project team plans to share project progress and results with the scientific community and/or general public, including but not limited to, publications, presentations, website, hosting workshops, developing training materials, code repository, or other engagement activities.
  2. Also describe any activities that promote the education and field experience of undergraduate and graduate students, and/or are opportunities developed to share with students and K–12 educators, as well as any educational scholarship or internship opportunities presented by this project. 
Example headline

Diversity and Inclusion

Articulate how the proposed project furthers their institution’s commitment to diversity, inclusion, and accessibility. A strong D&I statement communicates that creating and fostering a diverse and inclusive workforce is a priority for the applicant and their institution. Proposals should include, and will be evaluated among other criteria; see Section V.A.5 on.

Example headline

Data Management Plan

Proposals submitted in response to this announcement must include a Data Management Plan. See Section VI.B., Administrative and National Policy Requirements, below for additional information on what the plan should contain. Also refer to your institution’s data storing and sharing policies and regulations.

Example headline

Other Attachments

Additional attachments described below do not count towards the 14-page count defined above. The 14-page count only applies to Sections IV.B.2.(a–j).

Example headline

Budget Justification

Budget Narrative

Each individual proposal must include a Budget Justification in addition to the SF-424A Budget Information form and Project Narrative title page budget table.

The information in the Budget Narrative and the SF-424A Budget Information form must be consistent. Unlike the title page, neither the budget table in this section nor the SF-424A should include budget information for PIs or co-Is at other institutions who may be contributing to a joint project.

The Budget Narrative must include:

  1. A detailed itemized budget table organized by year
  2. A budget justification that demonstrates cost effectiveness.

This budget summary should include the PI’s scientific and technical support staff salaries and fringe benefits, facility requirements, computing and communications, supplies and travel. Only include the funding requested by the institution submitting the proposal. The information in this table must exactly match the SF-424A.

Example headline

Standard Forms

Mandatory Forms

  1. Standard Form 424 – Application for Federal Assistance 
  2. Standard Form 424A – Budget Information - Non-Construction ProgramsApplicants must use the Standard Form SF-424A Budget Information-Non Construction Programs that is contained in the standard NOAA Grants and Cooperative Agreement Package. Pay careful attention to show the yearly budget breakout on page 1A of the SF 424A for multi-year proposals. 
  3. Standard Form 424B – Assurances – Non-Construction Program 
  4. Form CD-511 – Certifications Regarding Lobbying 
  5. Standard Form LLL – Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Access the forms and view full announcement at Grants.Gov >

Example headline

Other Sections

  1. CV for all PIs, co-PIs, and co-Is
  2. Current and pending financial support for each investigator
  3. Any relevant letters of support or funding requests
Example headline

Multi-Institution Proposals For more information about Multi-Institution Proposals, please see the FAQ Section below.

For joint projects involving applications from multiple institutions, a PI must be identified for each institution submitting an application. All applications for that project must have the same title and identify the same Lead PI, co-PIs, and co-Is on the applications’ title page. The designated Lead PI and their associated institution will then be responsible for additional documents as described in the Notice of Funding. Multi-institution collaborative proposals should include the following: 

  1. Separate, identical proposals for each institution
  2. Separate budget table, justification, and SF-424A for your institution
  3. Summary project-total budget table (Lead-PI’s proposal only)
  4. NOAA Collaborator Acknowledgement Form, for NOAA federal and/or testbed collaborations

A Collaborator Acknowledgement Form should be provided by a representative of the NOAA Testbed(s) or Proving Ground(s) and included as part of any proposal requesting use of Testbed or Proving Ground resources to demonstrate proper coordination.

A Collaborator Acknowledgement Form should be completed by the following:

  • One federal Co-Investigator(s) from each federal (NOAA or otherwise) laboratory, center, office, or other institution contributing to the project
  • NOAA Testbed or Proving Ground Manager of each testbed or proving ground proposed to host this project’s experiment(s)

Any Collaborator Acknowledgement Form or letter of support does not count against the 14-page limit for the proposal.

Federal Collaborators Decision Help Chart
Example headline

Frequently Asked Questions

General Questions

Does WPO fund Federal institutions?

Federal employees are unable to receive funding toward their salary, and Federal contractors may not request funding toward their salary to perform work directly for their federal agency. Cooperative institute employees are eligible to receive funding for their salary as university employees.

Federal employees may not request funding for travel to conferences, workshops, etc. Federal employees may only request travel funding for project-critical travel for field work sites.

Federal agencies may request funding for infrastructure support such as costs of hosting a non-NOAA team member, purchasing project-critical equipment, or travel for participants in a project-critical testbed activity. The sum of these costs must total no greater than 20% of the total project budget. Funding to cover overhead costs charged by Cooperative Institutes or NOAA Laboratories does not apply to this 20% cap and is not limited.

Funding for testbed evaluations may include travel expenses for test subjects, such as NWS forecasters. However, after proposal selections are made, WPO will coordinate with NOAA testbed managers to evaluate the need for subjects to participate in upcoming planned testbed experiments. If multiple projects or other funding sources are expected to support a sufficient number of participants, then the requested amount of participant travel support may be negotiated downward for one or more projects.

The proposed project’s total costs must include all requested internal costs, including infrastructure, computing, equipment, and office space costs. If a NOAA federal institution is requesting any funding, the federal collaborator should submit a letter explicitly requesting the funding (one per collaborating institution requesting funding).

NOAA Federal collaborators not requesting funding are no longer required to submit a letter of support. Instead, each collaborating federal institution should submit a signed Collaborator Acknowledgement Form (attached to the NOFO on grants.gov). If the proposed project intends to participate in a NOAA testbed at any point, then the local testbed manager is considered a collaborator and should submit a Collaborator Acknowledgement Form.

Does WPO fund Federal collaborators?

The following costs for NOAA federal collaborators are eligible for funding through this NOFO: 

  • project-related travel for federal co-PIs (including to field sites and critical project meetings, but excluding travel for conferences, workshops, etc.);
  • infrastructure funding required by a NOAA organization hosting a non-federal PI or co-PI at a NOAA federal facility (e.g., a NOAA Cooperative Institute employee, such as costs for federal office space or computer access), including agreed-upon overhead costs;
  • equipment necessary to complete the project; project-critical travel for PIs and Co-PIs, excluding conference and seminar travel;
  • and travel for NWS forecasters in support of project-critical testbed activities. 

No other direct funding for Federal institutions, including salaries for Federal employees, will be considered as part of this funding opportunity. 

If the proposal is requesting any funding to support NOAA federal collaborators, then the proposal must include a signed letter from that NOAA host organization’s director requesting such funding. 

If institutional indirect (overhead) charges are included in the budget, the applicant must have an approved negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement and must include it as a part of the application package. Any standard Laboratory overhead costs at this pre-agreed-upon rate (such as those required of affiliated NOAA Cooperative Institutes) may be requested as part of the proposal’s budget. However, the sum of any other costs requested by federal collaborating organizations must not surpass 20% of the total proposed budget. Any costs for federal organizations should be clearly identified and justified in a letter of support but must not be included in the non federal PI’s SF-424 budget documents. These costs should also be included in the budget summary on each application’s title page and be identified in the Lead-PI institution’s budget summary and budget justification described in Section IV.B.2. Funding to cover standard Laboratory overhead costs at a pre-agreed upon rate will not be applied against the 20% maximum of federal costs.

All funding requested by a federal institution, to cover overhead or otherwise, will count against the maximum total project cost as specified for the competition (Section II.A), and the proposed project-total cost must not exceed that limit. The request for these funds will be considered by the WPO Program Manager and, if approved, will be provided directly to the NOAA organization if the proposal is selected. If this proposed funding is not properly and clearly documented, the application may be rejected without review. 

The need for federal NWS forecaster travel support for NOAA Testbed activities must be determined and coordinated with the relevant Testbed Manager(s). Requested support for federal NWS forecaster travel for testbeds may be renegotiated pending availability of NOAA Testbed resources following coordination with NOAA Testbed Managers. 

For Federal collaborators (without funding) involved in this competition, is there a required form?

Unfunded Federal collaborators should provide to the external PIs a completed Collaborator Form, which can be found under the “Related Documents” tab of the NOFO on Grants.gov.

The Letter of Support is optional, please refer to the decision chart above.

In determining eligibility, the Request for Proposal states that contractors for the Federal government have the same eligibility restrictions as Federal employees. Does the word “contractors” refer to or apply only to on-site contractors who are dedicated staff at a NOAA facility, or does it refer to the US based commercial organization as a whole if that commercial organization bids on Federal procurements?

The limitation is on Federal contractors, i.e., contractors working directly for a government agency. As long as the commercial organization is proposing work that is separate from any contractual work done for NOAA (or any other agency), then they are eligible.

Can a scientist from another Federal agency be a Co-Investigator on a proposed project?

Collaborators from any other non-NOAA Federal agency are welcome, but they are ineligible to receive funding.

Can you provide an example of travel, equipment, and especially the overhead /infrastructure costs that can be covered for Federal collaborators?

Eligible costs for Federal collaborators include travel and equipment purchases that are project-critical and cannot be covered by the external funded institutions. For example, use of government-provided hardware or travel to a field site that is not otherwise covered by the Federal institution. Details are included in Section IV.B.1 (pages 23-24) of the NOFO.

The modeling program priorities are listed in the NOFO. Links to 3 related documents are also included in the NOFO. Do the proposals need to focus only on the priorities directly in the NOFO, or does it also need to address priorities in the supplemental documents?

Proposals are judged based on the priorities in the NOFO, and the information sheets build upon those.

How does WPO address diversity & inclusion for funding projects?

A section Diversity, Inclusion, and Accessibility is required for each proposal. Applicants should articulate how the proposed project furthers their institution’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. The purpose of this section is to encourage increased involvement in WPO’s research and development of a diverse range of participants. This may be accomplished through recruitment of a diverse team, partnerships with diverse and/or underrepresented institutions, identification of broad societal benefits, and any other initiatives that build the capacity of and materially foster a diverse and inclusive research team and environment.

How are subawards handled?

If a subaward agreement has been arranged with their funded co-PIs such that the full award amount will be distributed directly from NOAA to one institution, then only one project proposal must be submitted (by the Lead-PI’s institution) to Grants.gov. Any institutions receiving funding through a subaward by another institution and not directly from NOAA are not required to submit a full proposal. However, the subaward should be clearly listed in the full proposal’s budget narrative immediately below the budget table (Section IV.B.2.n).

How do I submit a multi-institution proposal?

For joint projects involving applications from multiple institutions, a PI must be identified for each institution submitting an application. All applications for that project must have the same title and identify the same Lead PI, Co-PIs, and Co-Is on the applications’ title page. The designated Lead PI and their associated institution will then be responsible for additional documents as described in Section IV.B.2. 

For collaborative proposals that include multiple applications, each partner or PI institution wishing to receive funds directly from NOAA is responsible for submitting to Grants.gov separate proposal packages with identical project titles, title pages, project narratives, and project start dates. If any non-federal institution proposed to receive funding directly from NOAA as part of a multi-institution collaborative project fails to submit a full proposal, then all partner proposals may be rejected without review, unless a subaward agreement has been arranged. Federal institutions may not submit a proposal. 

All external proposal package components must be identical among all separate proposal submissions to Grants.gov for a multi-institution collaborative project, with two exceptions: 1) each institution’s separate budget information tables and budget justification (which will apply only to their own institution’s portion of the collaborative project and not the budgets for any other funded institution); and 2) any other institution-specific documents. Each identical title page must list all funded and unfunded PIs and their institutional affiliation(s), even if from a separate funded institution, for a given joint project. 

Will a NEPA statement be required?

A NEPA statement is not required as part of the proposal. However, a NEPA evaluation will occur if the proposal is selected for funding, in which case the Program Manager may require additional information to complete the assessment.

If you have a project that spans multiple competitions' priorities, can you submit an LOI to multiple competitions to help find the best fit?

It is recommended that an LOI is submitted to only one competition, and the WPO programs may then provide guidance if the project appears better suited to a different one.

Does a private sector PI need to have a NOAA collaborator?

A NOAA collaborator is not always required. For example, if the proposed work does not intend to be transitioned to NOAA operations or other applications within NOAA, then it may not need NOAA’s input.

For private sector organizations serving as PIs, how valued is it to have academic Co-PIs?

No requirements regarding PI affiliations are in place.

International subcontracts: The call for proposals states clearly that no foreign applicants may request funding. However, is it possible for a US applicant to subcontract a foreign entity? For example, if I were to lead a project from Tufts University, could I include a subcontract for the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre in the Netherlands?

International subcontracts may be acceptable as long as all federal funding initially is awarded to an eligible U.S. applicant, AND the international collaborator is not in conflict with U.S. foreign policy. That is to say, we cannot directly make an international award, but as long as your institution takes responsibility for the funding transfer and any associated administrative tasks and costs, then we should be able to make the full award to your institution, as with a domestic subcontract.

We are receiving equipment from a foreign company. Is this allowed, assuming my research institution is able to make such a purchase order?

As long as the foreign entity is not requesting funding as part of the proposal, then the use of foreign-provided equipment is permitted, assuming it is not in violation of U.S. foreign policy.

How should we handle a NOAA-funded no-cost extension on our current & pending support section?

Please list the award but note the dates of the no-cost extension. It will be helpful to know that no new funding is being allocated, but may still be used to ensure the PI is not being funded beyond 100% of their time in a given year.

Are awards from this competition allowed to request no-cost extensions?

No-cost extensions are permitted in certain circumstances at the end of the award period as long as no new work and no new funding are required. An extension may be requested near the end of the award, and the Program Manager will work with you if it is necessary.

Cost is listed as comprising 10% of the final score. Can you expand on how this is evaluated?

Cost is evaluated in terms of relative value of the funding requested. Reviewers will consider the impacts and benefits relative to the cost of each proposal. Think, “How much bang-for-the-buck will result?”

What is the funding maximum per year for the competitions?

Each competition sets its own funding maximum. Check Section II.A (page 19) in the NOFO for each program’s award ceiling.

How does WPO calibrate the scores across different reviewers?

Each program provides reviewers with a program-specific set of instructions and rubric, so the scores are calibrated within each competition.

Do I have to use NWS/NOAA data in my project or is weather data obtained from the private sector permissible?

Data from any source may be used in projects funded through these competitions.

Innovations for Community Modeling

In the Notice of Funding for this competition, it says "applicants are highly encouraged to work with EPIC." Does this mean we need to directly collaborate with them or just use their platforms?

Although there are no specific requirements to collaborate with EPIC, we strongly encourage collaboration with EPIC considering capabilities outlined in the NOFO documents. That may be via direct collaboration, or leveraging resources in a way that best strengthens a proposal and its impact to developing the UFS.

Can you provide a definition of community modeling to add clarity when developing application materials?

The focus of the Innovations for Community Modeling Competition is on the Unified Forecast System (UFS). Therefore, the applicable definitions of community modeling are closely associated with definitions found in the following documents: A Strategic Vision for the NOAA’s Physical Environmental Modeling Enterprise, UFS Organization and Governance, UFS Strategic Plan.

Is the Joint Technology Transfer Initiative (JTTI) included in this competition since there is no JTTI competition for FY23?

JTTI will be jointly funding projects with the EPIC program in the FY23 NOFO, under the Innovations for Community Modeling Competition Program Area I: Numerical Weather Prediction Capabilities. There is no other call for the JTTI program this year.

How does NOAA define "high risk" and how will that idea be translated to the reviewers?

In the Innovations for Community Modeling Competition, we want to support highly innovative research ideas with the potential for broad impact. The intent is to value research that may determine new methods or ways of achieving the priorities of our competition through proof-of-concept-level research at early or experimental stages.

What is the quantitative metric that you use to decide whether an innovations in community modeling proposal is incremental versus innovative?

We are defining innovation as a novel approach or strategy (not currently in use), potentially disruptive relative to the current approach, applied to solve a problem of pressing importance to NOAA and stakeholders. Regarding criteria to determine innovation, the reviewers will provide feedback on whether the proposed projects are innovative. In addition, proposal considered innovative will address priorities set out in NOAA’s Science Advisory Board’s Priorities for Weather Research, forecast system deficiencies derived from the 2020-21 NOAA Office of Science and Technology Integration, (OSTI) Forecasters Workshops priority report, and community priorities identified in the UFS Strategic Plan. Model developments should focus on UFS systems that are expected to be implemented into operations in 5 years or later, i.e. “next plus one” generations of the UFS. Approaches that benefit portability across HPC resources that are easier to transition across the research-to-operations funnel are encouraged. Innovative approaches such as code refactoring for HPC efficiency and next-gen computer performance, updating code language, and developing and using cloud-computing infrastructure for UFS applications, and proposals addressing needs towards converging community modeling systems in the long term are also strongly encouraged.

Can we use CFSv2.0 or only UFS?

The focus is on improving forecast skill in close alignment with NOAA’s vision and mission towards advancing the UFS. Model developments should focus on UFS systems that are expected to be implemented into operations in 5 years or later, i.e. “next plus one” generations of the UFS.

For the Innovations Competition, it says "The proposals must focus on substantially new approaches and not on incremental changes." What's the definition of new approaches and not incremental?

Proposal considered innovative will address priorities set out in NOAA’s Science Advisory Board’s Priorities for Weather Research, forecast system deficiencies derived from the 2020-21 NOAA Office of Science and Technology Integration, (OSTI) Forecasters Workshops priority report, and community priorities identified in the UFS Strategic Plan. Model developments should focus on UFS systems that are expected to be implemented into operations in 5 years or later, i.e. “next plus one” generations of the UFS. Approaches that benefit portability across HPC resources that are easier to transition across the research-to-operations funnel are encouraged. Innovative approaches such as code refactoring for HPC efficiency and next-gen computer performance, updating code language, and developing and using cloud-computing infrastructure for UFS applications, and proposals addressing needs towards converging community modeling systems in the long term are also strongly encouraged.

With the focus on the UFS for this competition, is that just the forecast model or the complete forecast/data assimilation system that comprises operational systems like GEFS and GFS?

The focus is on advancing the UFS to become the world’s most accurate and reliable operational modeling system in the world. Specific scope that defines which parts of the UFS that are targeted in this competition is provided in the program priorities outlined in Section B-1 of the FY23 NOFO in grants.gov.

The "Innovations for Community Modelling" competition states that selected projects will include low-cost high-risk/high-reward projects at RL 2-4 as well as larger collaborative projects starting at RL 5 and above. What is the upper limit for funding per year for the project to be considered a low-cost high-risk high-reward project starting at RL 2-4?

The upper limit for all proposals is $500K per year and that applies to all proposals submitted to the Innovations for Community Modeling Competition. There is no formal distinction between low or high cost projects. The intent in mentioning low cost projects in the NOFO is to encourage early-career scientists to submit proposals with innovative approaches valuable to the UFS, independently from the competition ceiling, noting our intent is that project awards will include an optimal balance of smaller high-risk, low-cost proof-of-concept ideas as well as larger collaborative proposals.

VORTEX-USA

Is the VORTEX-USA competition only open to current VORTEX SE/ USA researchers?

The VORTEX-USA competition is open to eligible applicants listed in Section III.A of the NOFO; this can include applicants that are not current VORTEX SE/USA researchers.

Observations

Can base flight hours be requested for project support? If yes, will WPO secure the needed flight hours out of the OAR pool through the OMAO aircraft allocation process?

Yes, fight hours could be an acceptable charge. The project should have a NOAA collaborator to coordinate the aircraft allocation process.

Social Science

Can you provide a bit more information on the OMB/PRA process? Should I build this into my proposal timeline?

Yes, the OMB timeline should be factored into your proposal. This process can be as fast as a few weeks or as long as a year. For more information, please see our information sheet and this website.

Can a proposal address several different priorities? For social science research (RL 2-3), do we need to specify future products (e.g. app development, patent/license)?

Within the same competition, a proposal can address multiple priorities. Every proposal should have a possible application area. Applications could be specific to a hazard area, or it could be a method that is transferable across hazards, for example.

Example headline

Competition Information Sheets

FY23 General Info Sheet
FY23 General Info Sheet
FY 23 Innovations Competition Information Sheet
FY23 Innovations Competition Information Sheet
FY23 Social and Behavioral Sciences Competition Information Sheet
Social and Behavioral Sciences Competition Information Sheet
FY23 Observations Competition Info Sheet
FY23 Observations Competition Info Sheet
FY23 VORTEX-USA Competition Info Sheet
FY23 VORTEX-USA Competition Info Sheet