Facility Request Procedures: How does it work?

1. Facility Request Procedures:How does it work? NSF Facilities Users’ Workshop 24 September 2007 Brigitte Baeuerle (EOL), Jim Huning and Steve Nelson (NSF/ATM)

2. PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES • To describe currentrequest process for Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities; • To explain the reasoning behind the changes, implemented in late 2004; • To clarify roles and responsibilities of NSF Program Officers, Facility Managers (FMs), Observing Facilities Assessment Panel (OFAP) and Principal Investigators (PIs)

3. NSF DEPLOYMENT POOL (DP) • Reserved “pot” of money (approx. 4 Million/year) exclusively dedicated to support field campaigns that use LAOF; • Covers costs associated with deployment of LAOF (shipping, fuel, fees, leases, comms, per diem, housing, travel, …); • Does not cover salaries (except temp hires and OT); • Does not cover PI support or expenses; • Does not cover maintenance; • Does not cover purchase of new instrumentation; • Does not cover expenses related to project-specific support provided by CDS or FPS (former JOSS support).

4. Observing Facilities Assessment Panel (OFAP) • NCAR-run Advisory Panel • 18 scientists/recognized experts in fields of observational meteorology • Appointment based on recommendation by NSF POs, FM, current OFAP members, interest • Meets twice per year (Spring, Fall) • 5 year term (approx. 6 mtgs) • Provides technical assessment of facility requirements to FM, PIs and NSF POs; • Provides input concerning experiment design and facility usage incl. resources allocations (flight hours, expendables etc)

5. FACILITIES COVERED BY DP • NSF/NCAR C-130 • NSF/NCAR G-V • UWY King Air • NRL P-3 with NCAR ELDORA • Wyoming Cloud Radar (on KA as well as C-130) • CSU/CHILL Radar • NCAR SPOL Radar • NCAR Integrated Sounding Systems (ISS/MISS) & Multiple Antenna Profiler (MAPR) • NCAR Integrated Surface Flux Systems (ISFS) • GPS Advanced Upper0Air Sounding Systems (GAUS, MGAUS) • GPS Dropsonde (AVAPS) System Not currently covered: • Driftsonde • Raman-shifted Eye-Safe Aerosol Lidar (REAL)

6. IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW PROCEDURES IN 2004 New policy and procedures are now in effect and began to impact programs this fiscal year with T-PARC Main Objectives: • Assists NSF program officers and the broader community in more effective planning for field campaign • Assist FM in more effective planning of maintenance and improvements in NSF supported facilities

7. Benefits For PIs: • Increased lead time for planning of field campaigns, especially complex programs; • More rigorous and thorough early review process early in the planning process; • Formal proposal to NSF (SPO) provides a mechanism to support project management For NSF: • Better coordination with international and national partners; representatives of other agencies may attend/present at OFAP (for clarity and to enhance overall understanding of proposed campaign) • Holistic review of entire scientific and experimental design; many field campaigns involve critical facilities that were previously not reviewed along with the NSF facilities; • Better understanding of total campaign cost

8. Benefits For EOL: • Increased lead time for planning of field campaigns, especially complex programs; • FMs are finding it easier to schedule facility upgrades and maintenance as well as new developments in between campaigns Challenges • Some additional up-front work on all parts (cost estimates, additional documentation…); • PIs have to be organized early on; • Increased trend in demand for facilities many years out

9. REQUEST PROCESS Procedures are now different for “large” and “small” programs. • “Large” Programs: • Field Costs >$1,000K (multiple facilities), and/or Unusually Complex Programs, • and/or Programs with Int’l Partners • “Small” Programs – all the rest • NSF, in consultation with PIs and FMs, will determine category, cost estimators also available from EOL website

10. SMALL PROGRAMS – PROCESS • Contact/Inform NSF Program Manager • Provide Letter of Intent to EOL & NSF • Name, Location, Dates, Facilities, Science • Inclusion in long term planning schedule • Contact/Interact w. FMs / Facility Staff reg. requirements/ plans • Prepare/Submit Facility Request to FMs; • Prepare/Submit OFAP science overview ppt to FMs; • Prepare/Submit NSF Proposal to NSF; science portion to EOL/Univ; • For NCAR-led campaigns, prepare/submit Proposal to EOL Director for mail scientific review

11. SMALL PROGRAMS -- Timeline Requests possible bi-annually (1 Jul/1 Dec) 15-21 months ahead of campaign 8 months for implementation

12. Large Field Programs(>$1M or Complex) • Two antecedent documents required: Scientific Program Overview (SPO) and Experimental Design Overview (EDO) • Required before submission of science proposals • Required before submission of facility requests • SDO and EDO are formal documents and final decisions for science proposal submission(s) will be made based on their reviews

13. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM OVERVIEW • Overall justification of the scientific program • Section D, Project Description • Scientific Rationale - Holistic • Brief description of experimental design; • Relationship to prior similar efforts; • List of all facilities and PIs (irrespective of source of support); • Formal submission of the SPO to NSF via Fastlane; NSF will distribute SPO or equivalent document to relevant FMs and OFAP

14. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN OVERVIEW • Overall concept of the experimental design, resource needs and management. • Holistic • Structure • Executive Summary • Scientific Rationale/Objectives • Experimental Design • Project Mgt (before and during field campaign) • Data Mgt • List of Facilities and PIs • EDO submitted to NSF (Huning and NSF Program Officer); copy to relevant FM and to OFAP

15. LARGE PROGRAMS – PROCESS • Contact/Inform NSF Program Manager (summer/fall FY-3) • Provide Letter of Intent to EOL & NSF • Name, Location, Dates, Facilities, Science • Inclusion in long term planning schedule • Preliminary Meeting with FM(s) and facility staff • Obtain preliminary cost estimates from FM for inclusion in SPO • Prepare/Submit SPO to NSF • Prepare/Submit EDO to NSF and EOL • Prepare/Submit .ppt overview to EOL • Prepare/Submit Facility Request to FM • Prepare/Submit NSF Proposal to NSF; science portion to EOL/Univ. • Prepare updated .ppt overview to EOL

16. LARGE PROGRAMS -- Timeline Only one review cycle per fiscal year. Scientific Review of SPO (completed by May FY-2) as well as individual science proposals (completed by Jan FY-1) FY-2 SPO/EDO and Facility Request submission dates under discussion 8 to 19 months for implementation

17. The black hole – what happens in between the time a request is submitted and the OFAP Meeting? • FM Responsibilities: • Preparation of feasibilities and cost estimates for facility requests and/or preparation of project assessments for EDOs; • Preparation of Project Feasibility Presentations for OFAP Meeting Note: Documents shared with NSF and PIs ahead of OFAP • NSF Responsibilities: • Conduct of scientific review of all NSF submitted proposals (SPOs as well as individual proposals);

18. EOL Responsibilities: • Where NCAR scientists have lead proposal, EOL Director will oversee scientific review process and coordinate with appropriate NCAR Lab Director, NSF program office and Facility Managers • Preparation of “Global Feasibility” (possible project combinations based on direct facility conflicts, resource limitations etc., shared with NSF) • Planning/Conduct of all aspects of OFAP Meeting including sending out review material to OFAP

19. What happens at the OFAP Meeting? • Each OFAP member is asked for review preferences and conflicts of interest before mtg; • Each OFAP member is assigned up to 4 OFAP requests in their area of expertise before OFAP meeting, one of those as lead reviewer; • Each project is introduced – w/o bias - by lead reviewer using scientific overview presentation provided by requesting PI, to entire OFAP, followed by feasibility analysis presentation by facility staff; • Assigned review team presents their evaluation, followed by discussion involving all OFAP attendees (i.e., NSF, Facility staff, OFAP) • Review team summarizes findings in writing and provides to FM THE OFAP DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER A PROJECT WILL BE FUNDED OR NOT

20. What happens after the OFAP Meeting? • Summary shared with NSF and PIs • PIs are welcome to respond to NSF PO • NSF Program Officer makes final decision based on scientific review of all NSF submitted proposals, feasibility analyses, OFAP recommendation and advice as well as budgetary and scheduling constraints. • NSF PO informs PIs about decision • EOL provides Allocation Letter

21. Questions from Workshop Attendees • Out of cycle requests • Not covered by DP but NSF PO Program Funds • Challenging: schedule constraints, little adaptability • Cost Recovery • On a non-interference basis with NSF programs • Also require some kind of scientific review • “Appropriate Use of the Facility” • Multi-year Programs • Approval for several years possible • Mid-project review suggested • Will require cost adjustments

22. Questions? http://www.eol.ucar.edu/deployment/request-info