Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing Institutes: Fusion Energy Science
Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOA) DE-FOA-0000571 and Program Announcement LAB11-571
Q1: Is it possible to submit biographical sketches longer than 2 pages so that all relevant information can be included?
A1: No, only the most relevant information should be included in biographical sketches to meet the page limit.
Q2: Regarding the submission process for collaborative proposals, is it acceptable for each participating institution to submit the same 26 page narrative to the grants or FWP process, augmented by a short work statement (2-3 pages) highlighting the particular work that would be done at that institution? Then, may the lead organization submit the full proposal with all the accompanying budget, FWP pages, and work statements from all collaborating institutions?
A2: That strategy is acceptable.
Q3: For the pre-proposal stage, are you expecting each collaborating institution to submit its own pre-proposal or do you want just one pre-proposal per collaboration?
A3: We expect only one pre-proposal per collaboration, which should be submitted by the lead PI. As described in the announcement, it should include information about all collaborators.
Q4: (a) Are partnerships encouraged to request funding for current Institute researchers to enable project-specific collaborations? (b) This increases the funding for the Institute participants beyond that covered by the Institute itself. Is this acceptable?
A4: (a) Yes. (b) Yes
Q5: Are partnerships discouraged from funding non-Institute researchers who have similar expertise to that covered by an Institute?
A5: From the FOA: “Proposers must identify collaborations with researchers in the recently selected SciDAC Institutes, avoiding duplication of resources available at the Institutes; the goal is to build the functionality of a vertically integrated enterprise but with common resources found in the SciDAC Institutes” and “Proposers may propose non-duplicative Applied Math/Computer Science expertise to supplement topics for which resources are provided by the Institutes, as well as expertise in topics for which no resources were provided by the Institutes”. The question should not be about the expertise but ultimately about the proposed assignments: there might be a non-Institute researcher with the same expertise as another in an Institute, but if their assignments were not duplicative, that would be acceptable. The goal is to avoid duplication of the work done by the Institutes.
Q6: To what extent should non-duplicative, non-supplemental Math & CS activities required by an application partnership be coordinated with one of the existing SciDAC Institutes?
A6: For unique Math or CS activities (i.e., not covered by any of the SciDAC Institutes), there is no need to coordinate with any of the SciDAC Institutes.
Q7: If an institution has participants on both the physics and math sides, should there be a separate institutional PI for each side, or a single overall PI for that institution?
A7: You should have only one PI from each institution, irrespective of whether they are FES or ASCR. Of course, within your institution, you can have whatever management structure makes sense to you.
Q8: When we propose a budget for ASCR activities, do we need to request additional funding for SciDAC Institute personnel?
A8: The lead proposal's budget must include the requested funding for all personnel performing work, including those in the SciDAC Institutes. As stated in the Announcement for the SciDAC Institutes (http://science.doe.gov/grants/pdf/SC-FOA-0000505.pdf) "...the work of each proposed Institute is not science application-specific…", therefore any work that you want them to do for your proposed project must include a proposed budget for that work.
Q9: Must all personnel that will be associated with the Institutes and perform specific work for the needs of the Partnership be located at and employed by the entities currently part of the Institutes? Or can one have some scientists employed elsewhere that will work with Institute personnel?
A9: Both approaches are acceptable.
Q10: (Follow up to Q2) Does the lead institution need to include the FWPs of all other institutions, or just their own? Does the lead institution need to include the budgets of all other institutions, or just their own?
A10: The lead proposal doesn't need to include all FWPs from all collaborating Labs. Nevertheless, the lead proposal should include the budgets from all institutions since reviewers are supposed to comment on the "Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget", one of the mandated 10 CFR Part 605.10 merit review requirements. Without access to the institutional budgets it will be difficult for the reviewers to provide meaningful comments when replying to this question. FWPs or proposals from collaborating institutions (i.e., other than the lead proposal) should only include their own budgets, the same common technical narrative, and a brief description of the institutional scope of work.