2019 JFSP Primary FOA.docx

[Attachment B] BlM Funding Opportunity Number L19AS00003 JFSP Announcement No. FA-FOA0019-002 Page 24 Primary Announcement

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY TITLE:

BLM-National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) Primary Announcement (Two Task Statements)

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY NUMBER:

L19AS00003

JFSP Announcement No. FA-FOA0019-002

ANNOUNCEMENT TYPE:

Request for Applications Issued: March 13, 2019

CFDA NUMBER & TITLE:

15.232 – Wildland Fire Research & Studies Program

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY:

FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 (FLPMA), 43 USC §1737 (b), Public Law 94-579

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS:

May 16, 2019, 5:00 p.m. MST

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT

for Federal Financial Assistance

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Rev 6-2016

A. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

1. Authority This Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Federal Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity is being announced under the following legislative authority:

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 USC §1737 (b), Public Law 94-579

2. Description of Program and/or Project

a. Background: The Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) is a partnership of six federal wildland fire management and research agencies that have a shared need to address problems associated with managing wildland fuels, fires, and fire-impacted ecosystems.

The partnering agencies include the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS) and five bureaus in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI): Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Geological Survey. The DOI also is represented by the Office of Wildland Fire. Funding to support the program is provided by both DOI and FS.

For further background on the JFSP, those considering submitting proposals are encouraged to visit its website at www.firescience.gov.

b. Objectives: The U.S. Congress directed the DOI and USDA FS to develop a Joint Fire Science Program and Plan to prioritize and provide sound scientific studies to support the land management agencies and other stakeholders in addressing issues associated with wildland fire. Current research priorities are identified as a task statement in this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).

3. Program/Project Strategic Goals

As a jointly funded program, JFSP research priorities align strategically with the priorities of the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture.

Specifically, JFSP-funded research addresses the Secretary of Interior’s priority to “create a conservation stewardship legacy second only to Teddy Roosevelt [by using] science to identify best practices to manage land and water resources and adapt to changes in the environment.”

and

Secretary of Agriculture’s priorities to “foster productive and sustainable use of our National Forest System lands and to strengthen the stewardship of private lands through technology and research.” In addition, with respect to wildland fire in particular JFSP research priorities address both Secretaries’ goals of reducing the occurrence and impacts of catastrophic wildfire through active management by contributing to the underlying scientific understanding and decision support tools needed to make informed decisions.

Finally, JFSP research priorities, as demonstrated by the task statements included in this FOA, directly and indirectly support the three goals of the 2014 National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (“Cohesive Strategy”):

B. FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION

1. Award Instrument

In accordance with the Legislative Authority, an inter-agency agreement will be used for federal awards.

A cooperative agreement will be used for non-federal awards and substantive Bureau of Land Management (BLM) involvement will consist of the following:

· The BLM Program Officer (PO) will collaborate with the recipient's Project Manager/Principal Investigator (RPM/PI) to manage technical execution of the project, recommended changes to objectives or technical execution.

· The JFSP program office is in contact with Principal Investigators to ensure projects are progressing according to the submitted proposals including occasional field trips and meetings with Project Manager/Principal Investigator.

· Responsibility for project management, control, and direction will be shared by the recipient and the BLM, however the BLM will have the right to intervene by modifying the project management plan if the project is not staying on schedule and/or technical issues arise.

5. Anticipated Start Date Late-August to mid-September 2018

7. No Obligation to Award The BLM is under no obligation to award funds for this project. Only BLM Grants Management Officers (GMO) may obligate funds for financial assistance.

C. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

1. Eligible Applicants

· The JFSP encourages proposals from all eligible parties and partners. Funds will be awarded through a university, tribal government, non-governmental organization (NGO) or federal agency.

· Proposals with a PI from states or that have any international funding, also must identify a funding cooperator from the United States to receive and process the funds.

· Proposals with a university, tribal government, or NGO PI that do not include funding for federal agencies do not need a funding cooperator and funds will route through the PI’s institution.

· Proposals that include budgeted funds to be spent by a federal agency and that do not have a federal PI, must list a funding cooperator from the federal agency requesting funds. Any funds awarded to a federal agency will be issued under an Interagency Agreement.

· JFSP encourages proposals from any eligible party or partner that is part of a Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) program. CESUs are partnerships that provide research, technical assistance, and education. If a cooperative agreement is awarded to a CESU partner under a formally negotiated Master CESU agreement, indirect costs are limited to a rate of no more than 17.5 percemt of the indirect cost base recognized in the partner's Federal Agency-approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA).

JFSP will enter into only one agreement per project with the PI institution or the funding cooperator institution.

· The PI institution or funding cooperator institution will be responsible for entering into sub-agreements with collaborating institutions.

· Budgets must be reviewed and approved by the institution’s Budget contact and Agreements contact prior to proposal submission. If a funding cooperator is involved, the Agreements contact and Budget contact must be from the funding cooperator’s institution.

· If the funding cooperator is from the Forest Service, the cooperator must be from a Forest Service Research Station. Work with your station funding cooperator to ensure you meet the station requirements for submission.

· JFSP will not provide additional funds to cover budget errors discovered after the proposal submission deadline.

· The end date and indirect costs for all sub-awards must match the end date and indirect costs in the original funding award document. The PI’s institution should take into account any potential delays anticipated in executing sub-agreements when proposing project timelines. (See funding cooperator flowchart below)

a. Provide a valid DUNS number (Dun & Bradstreet Universal Numbering System) on its application. DUNS numbers are nine-digit numbers established and assigned by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. (D&B) to uniquely identify business entities. DUNS numbers may be obtained free of charge from Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., at: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform or by calling them at (877) 930-5228.

b. Be registered in SAM (System for Award Management, www.SAM.gov) before submitting its application. SAM is the Official U.S. Government system that consolidated the capabilities of CCR/FedReg, ORCA, and EPLS. No fee is required to register at this site. Register in the System for Award Management (SAM) at: http://www.sam.gov.

c. Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the applicant has an active federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a federal awarding agency

4. Other Restrictions JFSP has an approved indirect cost rate deviation that limits proposals to a maximum of twenty (20) percent of the direct costs for each institution. Proposals requesting funds for indirect rates higher than twenty (20) percent will not be considered. This memo can be found on the JFSP website at this link: http://www.firescience.gov/documents/BLM_Iindirect_cost_rate_exception_signed.pdf. Proposal funding through a federal funding cooperator must reflect either the prevailing indirect rate for the cooperating federal agency or the JFSP maximum limit of twenty (20) percent, whichever is less.

Pass-through costs are charged only by the PI institution or funding cooperator institution for administrative costs associated with managing sub-agreements. Pass-through costs are limited to ten (10) percent of the sub-agreement total costs.

Unrecovered indirect costs can be used as contributed funds in the budget.

5. Scientific Integrity Scientific integrity is vital to Department of the Interior (DOI) activities under which scientific research, data, summaries, syntheses, interpretations, presentations, and/or publications are developed and used. Failure to uphold the highest degree of scientific integrity will result not only in potentially flawed scientific results, interpretations, and applications but will damage DOI’s reputation and ability to uphold the public’s trust. All work performed must comply with the DOI Scientific Integrity Policy posted to http://www.doi.gov, or its equivalent as provided by the proposer’s organization or applicable State law.

D. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

1. Proposal Submission and Agency Contact All proposals must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. MST, May 16, 2019, using the electronic submission process provided on the JFSP website (www.firescience.gov). Proposals should not be submitted through Grants.gov. No exceptions are allowed to this closing date and time.

All proposals must meet all requirements in this FOA (see especially Section D.6 below). Proposals that do not meet all requirements in this section will not be considered for funding.

Direct questions to:

Administrative questions:

Becky Jenison, Program Analyst Phone: 208-387-5958 Email: bjenison@blm.gov

Task statement questions:

2. Steps to Create and Complete a JFSP Proposal Multiple steps are necessary to create a JFSP proposal, some of which are dependent on prior steps. Proposals must be submitted electronically via the JFSP website (www.firescience.gov). For full list of requirements see Section D.6 below.

Step 1 – PI establishes profile, updates password.

Step 2 – PI initiates proposal (select task, receive proposal #, enter proposal title).

Step 3 – Enter contacts (all contacts establish profiles, update passwords; PI assigns roles). Once the PI enters a contact they will have access to sign into the database and access the proposal.

Step 4 – Proposal development (templates, requirements).

Step 5 – Complete budget (template, narrative).

Step 6 – Attach all documents (proposal body, literature cited, budget, budget narrative, data management plan, CVs, list of acronyms (optional), support letters (optional).

Step 7 – PI enters final details (project location, budget summary, start/end dates, abstract, task statement relevancy, and project category).

Step 8 – Budget Contact and Agreements Contact sign in to the database and certify review of budget and budget narrative.

Step 9 – PI submits proposal (you must convert to Final Draft status first before hitting the Submit Proposal Button).

Notes

· Many steps can be in progress concurrently

· All information, including attachments, can be saved as Draft and edited later

3. Task Statement(s) Task Statement 1: Effectiveness of fuel breaks and fuel break systems Objectives

The objectives of this task statement are to: (1) identify or develop metrics (standards) to assess fuel break[footnoteRef:1] and fuel break system[footnoteRef:2] performance, (2) evaluate fuel breaks and fuel break systems against these standards, and (3) identify necessary improvements in the implementation of operational fire behavior models and their data input requirements relative to assessing fuel break and fuel break system effectiveness. [1: For the purpose of this task statement, a fuel break is a natural or manmade change in fuel characteristics that affects fire behavior so that fire burning into them can be controlled more readily. Fuel breaks can include bare ground, but more typically have a vegetation component.] [2: For the purpose of this task statement, a fuel break system (or network) is a series of modified strips or blocks tied together to form strategically located fuel breaks around land units.]

Background

Use of fuel breaks and fuel break systems is commonplace in many forested and non-forested vegetative systems. These breaks and break systems are designed to disrupt fuel continuity by reducing fuel accumulations and volatility or by increasing the proportion of plants with high moisture content. As mechanisms designed to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, they are important tools in the active management (or proactive fuels management) toolbox. Although these tools are commonly used, scientific assessments of effectiveness are limited in number and to certain vegetation types. Moreover, most of the existing science on this topic evaluates individual fuel breaks as opposed to fuel break systems.

In one geographic area of emphasis, a federal land management agency is developing landscape-scale plans to design and implement fuel break systems throughout the Great Basin. In recognition of the need for additional research to inform the development and maintenance of these systems, the recently released Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan also identified this as a research need. Similar research needs extend to other regions as well.

Both positive and negative outcomes of human use of fuel breaks can occur. For example, fuel breaks can improve access and decrease wildfire response time, function as an operational control line, and enhance firefighter safety. By improving access, however, fuel breaks also can contribute indirectly to additional human caused fires and spread of invasive species in these areas.

Both qualitative and quantitative metrics are needed to assess fuel break and fuel break system performance in different regions and vegetation types. In addition, it is desirable to use these metrics to identify and address needed improvements in the implementation of operational fire behavior models and their required data inputs, including the refinement or development of fuel models. This can lead to an overall improvement in model output interpretation as a means to assess fuel break and fuel break system effectiveness.

Research Needs

Proposers must address all research needs below to be considered responsive to this task statement.

Research proposals are sought that identify or develop metrics to assess fuel break and fuel break system performance and the applicability of these metrics to operational fire behavior models, with a particular interest in the performance of fuel break systems at landscape[footnoteRef:3] and regional scales. Although ongoing work in the Great Basin provides an opportunity to address the research needs below, proposals that address other regions and vegetation types are welcome. Research proposals should identify fire environment factors such as fuel moisture, wind, and relative humidity relative to fuel break characteristics (bare ground, vegetative) that will be considered in the development of metrics. [3: For purposes of this task statement, a landscape is defined as a mosaic of interacting ecosystems and their associated ecological processes at a spatial scale in the 1,000s to 100,000s of acres.]

Specific research needs include:

1. Identify or develop quantitative and qualitative metrics (standards) to assess fuel break and fuel break system performance. Metrics should be based on end-user needs and enable quantifying how fuel breaks and fuel break systems affect short- and long-term risk[footnoteRef:4] from wildfire to firefighters, human communities, and cultural and natural resources. [4: For the purpose of this task statement, risk is defined as a measure of the probability and consequence of uncertain future events in accordance with the usage and contexts of Thompson et al. (2016. Risk terminology primer: Basic principles and a glossary for the wildland fire management community. RMRS-GTR-349.).]

2. Evaluate against the above standards existing or planned fuel breaks and fuel break systems, with respect to their fire environment and characteristics (e.g., treatment type, species involved when a biotic fuel break) and effectiveness.

3. Identify the relative change in risk to values of concern from designing and installing fuel breaks as a system versus installing individual fuel breaks.

4. Identify necessary improvements in the implementation of operational fire behavior models, modeling processes, and data input requirements (e.g., fuel models) through model calibration, evaluation, and validation that incorporate the standards above and support overall improvement in model output interpretation as a means to assess fuel break and fuel break system effectiveness.

This task statement does not require any additional end-of-project deliverables beyond the standard final report, metadata, and completed project overview.

Task Statement 2: Reducing damages and losses to valued resources from wildfire Objectives

The objectives of this task statement are to: (1) evaluate and improve methodologies to quantify potential damages and losses to valued resources from wildfire within a risk[footnoteRef:5] management framework that accounts for wildfires of different intensities/severities and their probabilities of occurrence in space and time, (2) understand the role of changing fuel conditions from active management[footnoteRef:6] and fire suppression operations with respect to reducing wildfire-induced damages and losses to valued resources[footnoteRef:7] and (3) inform the development of outcome-based metrics used in risk assessments to assess potential impacts (benefits, as well as damages and losses) of wildfire to valued resources. [5: For the purpose of this task statement, we define risk as a measure of the probability and consequence of uncertain future events in accordance with the usage and contexts of Thompson et al. (2016. Risk terminology primer: Basic principles and a glossary for the wildland fire management community. RMRS-GTR-349).] [6: For the purpose of this task statement, active management, or proactive fuels management, refers to the use of any tool to modify fuels and potential fire behavior, including mechanical (e.g., thinning), biological (e.g., grazing), or chemical (e.g., herbicide) treatments; timber sales; prescribed burning; seeding/planting; and managed wildfire. ] [7: For the purpose of this task statement, valued resources are defined as those natural, cultural, and human-valued resources at risk for which fuel treatments are designed to reduce their exposure to wildfire. This can include, but is not limited to, housing or other structures, wildlife habitat, and watershed services.]

Background

Damages to and losses of valued resources due to wildfire are sensitive to fuel conditions, fire intensity/severity, and fire suppression operations. The costs associated with active management to address the fuel conditions often are justified because they can reduce potential damages and losses to valued resources in the event of a wildfire. When encountered by wildfire, for example, a mechanical thinning treatment can result in reduced fire intensity within the footprint and immediate vicinity of the treatment. This can lead to ecosystem benefits by avoiding damages to critical watershed services, timber products, wildlife habitat, and other valued natural resources. Actively managed areas also can provide opportunities for firefighters to safely and effectively conduct fire suppression and point protection operations during wildfires, thereby minimizing damages to human communities, infrastructure, and other valued human resources both within and outside previously actively managed areas. Given broad agency missions and the inherent uncertainty associated with wildfire occurrence in space and time, fire and land managers should consider values of concern within a risk management framework (in which the probability of wildfire impacting valued resources is considered) to determine potential returns on investment for active management actions.

Methodologies for assessing wildfire risk to valued resources, including risk-based economic models, have become increasingly sophisticated in recent years and some managers use these approaches in program planning. Existing methodologies, however, often rely on simplified assumptions in regard to the effects of wildfire on different types of valued resources. The role of wildfires of different intensities/severities and their probabilities of occurrence may be considered; however, the explicit relationships between these different fires and their resultant damages and losses to valued resources are not quantified. Moreover, the spatial heterogeneity of the fire also is not considered. For example, complete structure loss often is assumed in risk assessments when wildfire is predicted to encounter the wildland-urban interface. In reality, however, the amount of structure loss or damage is related to the intensity/severity of the wildfire event, its duration, and spatial patterning.

Most empirical studies of the effectiveness of management actions have taken the form of an examination of wildfire effects within an area previously subject to active management and a comparable area not previously subject to active management. Many such studies have documented reduced fire severity (i.e., less consumed fuel) and mitigated ecosystem responses (e.g., in terms of tree mortality, soil effects, wildlife habitat) in the managed area relative to the unmanaged area. In addition, the interactions of actively managed areas with fire suppression operations likely have profound effects on wildfire outcomes for valued resources, but this interaction is rarely considered in such analyses. Few empirical studies have documented management effectiveness, alone and in combination with suppression actions, in terms of reducing damages and losses to other valued resources (e.g., structures, watershed services) both within and outside of managed areas. Studies are needed that expand on the notion of active management effectiveness to include impacts to a variety of valued resources, interactions with suppression operations, and impacts at spatial scales beyond the management footprint.

To strengthen the assumptions in risk assessments and economic analyses and to improve our understanding of the effects of wildfire on damages to valued resources, assessments and analyses should be conducted both with and in the absence of active management and fire suppression operations. In particular, empirical data on wildfire impacts to valued resources in different settings is needed to improve wildfire risk assessments through economic model validation and refinement of metrics that can quantify potential exposure to wildfire under different conditions. Such metrics should be outcome-based and enable quantifying impacts to valued resources and their relationships to different levels of fire intensity/severity.

Research needs

Proposers must address all research needs (1, 2, and 3) below to be considered responsive to this task statement. Research proposals are sought that use historical or new data to evaluate active management actions, alone or in conjunction with fire suppression operations, in terms of their ability to reduce wildfire risk as measured by reduced damages and losses to valued resources. Proposals should address the research needs at landscape[footnoteRef:8] to regional scales and demonstrate how data will be used to evaluate or improve methodologies, including economic models, that can be used to assess wildfire risk to valued resources. Studied valued resources should reflect landscapes/regions and land management priorities that have broad applicability. [8: For the purpose of this task statement, a landscape is defined as a mosaic of interacting ecosystems and their associated ecological processes at a spatial scale in the 1000s to 100,000s of acres. ]

Specific research needs include:

1. Evaluate and improve methodologies to assess potential damages and losses to valued resources from wildfire within a risk management framework.

2. Quantitatively evaluate the performance of one or more active management tools, alone and, if possible, in conjunction with fire suppression operations, on the degree to which wildfire-induced damages and losses to valued resources are reduced.

3. Use information from research needs 1 and 2 to inform the development of new outcome-based metrics to measure how impacts to values can change under wildfires of different intensities/severities.

This task statement does not require any additional end-of-project deliverables beyond the standard final report, metadata, and completed project overview.

4. Budget and Funding Policy

a) Funding Cooperator Proposal may require a funding cooperator. See Section C above.

b) Indirect Costs The JFSP recognizes that agencies and organizations participating in the program need to recover reasonable indirect costs. Budget feasibility (cost effectiveness) of the individual projects, however, is a determining factor in the final selection process. JFSP has an approved indirect cost rate deviation that limits proposals to a maximum of twenty (20) percent of the direct costs for each institution. Proposals requesting funds for indirect rates higher than twenty (20) percent will not be considered. This memo can be found on the JFSP website at this link: http://www.firescience.gov/documents/BLM_Iindirect_cost_rate_exception_signed.pdf

Proposal funding through a federal funding cooperator must reflect either the prevailing indirect rate for the cooperating federal agency or the JFSP maximum limit of twenty (20) percent, whichever is less.

If your organization has never had a NICRA, the BLM Grants Management Officer (GMO) may allow an indirect cost rate of up to 10% of your base modified total direct costs (MTDC). MTDC includes all salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and subgrants and subcontracts up to the first $25,000 of each. Include the computational basis for the indirect expense pool and corresponding allocation base for your rate.

Pass-through costs are charged only by the PI institution or funding cooperator institution for administrative costs associated with managing sub-agreements. Pass-through costs are limited to ten (10) percent of the sub-agreement total costs. (See indirect cost example below)

Unrecovered indirect costs can be used as contributed funds in the budget.

Indirect costs example

Scenario

· The PI is from a university or federal agency (lead institution)

· Co-PI is from a cooperating university or NGO (cooperating institution)

· The calculated expenses in the Budget for the lead institution are $200,000 (salary, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, etc.)

· The calculated expenses in the Budget for the cooperating institution are $40,000

Calculation of indirect costs

1. Cooperating institution

Note: If multiple cooperating institutions are involved this calculation would be performed for each institution.

2. Lead institution

3. Total Budget = $244,800 + $48,000 = $292,800

Points of emphasis

· Lead institutions can include pass-through costs for each cooperating institution in their budget.

· Pass-through costs are calculated based on the total budget for each cooperating institution, including the indirect costs calculated by the cooperating institution.

· Cooperating institutions typically do not include pass-through costs in their budgets.

· Institutions should use their negotiated indirect cost rates with their cooperating institutions, but cannot exceed JFSP maximums.

c) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Costs Certain proposals may be required to pay a percentage of the project’s costs into the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. Proposals for which the funds are transferred to a Forest Service institution and subsequently a portion of the total budget is awarded to a non-federal entity through a sub-agreement or sub-contract may be required to pay the prevailing rate of the total funds awarded externally to the SBIR program. PI’s should check with their Agreements contact to determine if this applies to your proposal and to determine the current rate.

d) Equipment Policy Investigators are encouraged to contribute equipment (see 2 CFR Part 200.313) to conduct studies funded by JFSP from existing equipment inventories. Contributed equipment should be included as “contributed costs” in JFSP budget spreadsheets and on the budget tab.

If necessary equipment is not available, JFSP will partially or fully fund equipment needed to conduct research funded by JFSP. In no case will JFSP pay more than $5,000 for a piece of equipment. If a new piece of equipment costing more than $5,000 is needed for the proposed project, proposal investigators are expected to contribute the remaining costs in excess of $5,000.

This criterion is to be applied for each and every piece of equipment.

e) Salary Policy Salaries of permanent full-time employees are not paid by JFSP and must be provided by employing institutions. This includes university faculty on 12-month tenure-track appointments that have contracted salary.

JFSP will provide funding for university research appointment, part-time, temporary, term , and post-doctoral employees, as well as graduate and undergraduate students. JFSP will pay salary for academic employees on a 9-month appointment, but only for the months they are not funded by their institution and only for the time focused on their JFSP project. JFSP will not pay salary for other personnel to fill in for employees working on a JFSP project.

Contractors can request salary support to complete contracted work. Salary costs must be limited to only salary and fringe. Other salary cost burdens must be included as indirect costs and are subject to the indirect rate exception that cannot exceed in total 20% of direct costs. See https://www.firescience.gov/documents/BLM_Iindirect_cost_rate_exception_signed.pdf

Student stipends are acceptable costs, but tuition and other university fees will not be funded.

f) Budget The budget spreadsheet and narrative must be reviewed by the Budget contact and Agreements contact to ensure all costs have been included and the budget is correct including indirect charges. JFSP will not provide additional funds to cover errors discovered after the proposal submission deadline.

Budget spreadsheet must use the provided template and have a separate worksheet for each institution requesting or contributing funds, including all sub-agreements and contracted costs over $10,000. Identify all work that will be accomplished, including a breakdown of all tasks to be completed, and provide a detailed budget estimate in accordance with 2 CFR Parts 200.317 through 200.326. Contracted indirect costs and fees are subject to the indirect rate exception. Contracted costs under $10,000 must still be explained in detail in the budget narrative but do not require a separate worksheet in the budget template.

Budget narratives must have the level of detail provided in the example in the budget narrative template. Lump sum costs are not acceptable in any category, without a detail breakdown of how the costs were determined. Funded proposals will be closely scrutinized for allowable and reasonable costs before an award is issued. The JFSP also reserves the right to negotiate final budget numbers based on the final approved work scope.

The Budget contact and Agreements contact must sign in to the JFSP system and certify the budget is correct and that they understand their role in receiving funds and facilitating agreements. Proposals cannot be submitted by the PI if both contacts have not completed this task in the database. (See screen print below)

Proposals will be funded via cooperative agreement or Interagency Agreementor agency budget transfer. Budget contact and agreements contact must ensure that budgets have the correct indirect rates for your circumstances.

The JFSP does not fund projects that are, or should be, funded internally from existing accounts (such as routine agency monitoring) or operational portions (such as the installation of fuels treatments or development of fire management plans) of other projects.

Funding is usually distributed in late summer or early fall. Budgets should be planned with this timing in mind.

5. Data Management Plan (DMP)

It is the intent of JFSP that all data collected, generated, or compiled through JFSP funds are of high quality and made freely available to others within a reasonable time period. The JFSP recognizes that preparation of data and metadata for publication is a time consuming process. Adequate funds to support this work should be included in proposal budgets.

A Data Management Plan must be attached as a separate document and is limited to two pages maximum. The DMP will be considered in the proposal review process. See the DMP template and instructions for further details.

Investigators must select a data repository well suited for long-term archival, publication, and data sharing of data collected, generated, or compiled through JFSP funding. The JFSP recommends use of the Forest Service Research & Development (R&D) data archive (http://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/). To discuss the archive’s services, please contact archivist Dave Rugg (drugg@fs.fed.us) or associate archivist Laurie Porth (lporth@fs.fed.us).

The Forest Service R&D data archive will provide the central metadata catalog for all JFSP projects. Submission of metadata to be provided ultimately to the Forest Service R&D data archive will be required as part of final report submission, regardless of final data repository used. The JFSP will review the metadata to ensure that all required information is provided (including a pointer to the intended archival location of the data). Final reports will not be considered completed until these metadata have been reviewed and accepted. Failure to meet the preceding submittal requirements may affect eligibility to submit for consideration future JFSP proposals.

Submission of the associated data sets to the chosen repository should occur within six months of metadata submittal. For submittals to the Forest Service R&D data archive, Forest Service R&D will work with the PI to ensure final acceptability of the metadata and associated data sets. No matter the chosen repository, the PI is responsible for ensuring that final metadata are provided to Forest Service R&D. For all collected, generated, or compiled data PIs must ensure that they are evaluated for errors, as well as subjected to data proofing and validation procedures, prior to submittal. The PI is responsible for keeping the metadata in the official catalog current over time.

It is JFSP’s policy that PIs can limit release of data sets for up to two years following submission of the final report for publication and quality assurance purposes. At the end of this period, all data sets should be made publicly available.

6. Additional Application Requirements Proposals must meet all of the following requirements to be considered. Incomplete proposals will not be considered. No exceptions will be made to either the submission deadline or other submission requirements.

a) Proposal Submission Proposals must be submitted electronically via the JFSP website (www.firescience.gov). Proposals should not be submitted in Grants.gov. Hard copy, email, or facsimile proposals will not be accepted. Proposals can be created in the database at any time and saved as a draft for submission any time prior to the closing date and time.

· A JFSP database login and password is required to submit a proposal (see section b below). Requests for profiles will be processed in approximately 24 hours.

· The Budget contact must sign into the system and certify the budget is correct before the proposal can be submitted. Note that the PI will not be able to complete this task for the Budget contact. The PI must assign this contact on the contact tab before the Budget contact can sign in to complete this process.

· The Agreements contact must sign into the system and certify the budget is correct before the proposal can be submitted. Note that the PI will not be able to complete this task for the Agreements contact. The PI must assign this contact on the contact tab before the Agreements contact can sign in to complete this process.Only the PI can submit the proposal.

· Proposals can be saved in the JFSP system and submitted prior to the closing date and time. Submitted proposals can be reverted back to Final Draft by the PI prior to the closing date. If you revert a proposal back to Final Draft you must resubmit the proposal before the closing date and time.

· The JFSP proposal submittal system will not allow proposals to be submitted after the closing date and time.

b) Profiles

· All contacts must have a profile in the JFSP database that must be entered on the contacts tab by the PI.

· Proposals cannot be submitted if all required contacts (see Contacts below) are not entered on the contacts tab by the PI.

· It can take up to 24 hours to get a profile created. It is advisable to request profiles early in the process.

· To request a profile or password reset go to the JFSP website and click on the sign in link in the upper right hand corner of the page. Use the appropriate link for requesting a password reset or requesting a new user registration.

c) Contacts Proposals may be required to have the following contacts (see Section H. Other Information for definitions to understand the role of each contact) assigned to a proposal:

· Principal Investigator (required, only one Principal Investigator can be assigned)

· Student Investigator (required)

· Funding Cooperator (may be required, see Section C)

· Budget Contact (required); in some cases this may be the same as the Agreements contact

· Agreements Contact (required); in some cases this may be the same as the Budget Contact

· Co-PIs and Collaborators (options).

It is the PI’s responsibility to ensure all correct contacts are entered into the proposal database. Please read Section Section H. Other Information for definitions carefully to ensure you have the correct contact from the correct institution listed.

d) Confirmation Page When the PI submits the proposal they will receive a confirmation page. It is highly recommend that PIs save or print that page for their records. If this confirmation page is not received the proposal has not been submitted correctly. It is the responsibility of the PI to ensure the proposal has been submitted correctly by the closing date and time.

e) Abstract Proposers must cut and paste the three sub-sections of the Overview section in the proposal template (Problem Statement, Objectives, and Benefits) into the Abstract field in the Details tab of the JFSP database. The Abstract will become the publicly accessible description of the project.

f) Task Statement Relevancy Proposers must cut and paste the fourth sub-section of the Overview section in the proposal template (Task Statement Relevancy) into the Task Statement Relevancy field in the Details tab.

g) Attachments All required documents and templates must be attached before the proposal can be submitted. All attachments except the budget must be attached as an adobe pdf document; the budget template is in an Excel format. The PI should ensure that no loss of information occurred upon conversion to a pdf document. Attachments over the page limits cannot be submitted. All information in a template must be included as part of that attachment and must be within the page limit. Extraneous materials (e.g., extra graphs and text) are not permitted and will not be reviewed.

Required attachments for all proposals must use templates provided to be considered:

· Proposal body

· Literature cited

· Budget spreadsheet (Excel spreadsheet; include a separate worksheet for each institution or contracted costs greater than $10,000)

· Budget narrative (explanation of specific budget assumptions and costs by institution)

· Science delivery

· Data Management Plan (see below)

· Curriculum Vitae for PIs and Co-PIs (two pages maximum for each person; include relevant publications)

Additional attachments:

· Letter(s) of support (optional, but recommended)

· List of acronyms (optional, but recommended)

· Specific to a task statement (check this year’s task statement for additional requirements, if any)

h) Data Management Plan All proposals are required to submit a Data Management Plan (DMP) using the instructions, template, and example provided (See Section D.5) above).

i) Budget Budget summary numbers summarized by institution type requesting funds must be entered in the JFSP database on the Budget tab. The budget spreadsheet and budget narrative must be attached on the attachments tab using the spreadsheet template provided.

Proposals cannot be submitted without completing these required fields and attachments. Do not edit spreadsheet formulas and formatting without first contacting Becky Jenison (bjenison@blm.gov).

j) Task Statement Intent Proposals that do not clearly and directly meet the intent of the task statement will not be forwarded to peer review or considered for funding. The PI for a proposal that does not meet the intent of the task statement will receive a rejection notice after the administrative review has been completed. In addition, PIs should ensure they are submitting their proposal for the correct task statement in the JFSP database.

k) Format Proposals not following the required template(s) will not be considered. Proposals must use an 11 point font or larger. Additional guidance is included in the beginning of each template.

l) Page Limits Attachments exceeding the page limits cannot be submitted. Check the page limit in the template and JFSP database. Everything required as part of the template is included in the page limit.

m) Project Location Project location fields must be completed on the location tab for a proposal to be successfully submitted. Instructions are listed on the project location tab.

n) Signatures Handwritten signatures are not required. When Principal Investigators (PIs) submit proposals they will be prompted to enter their password. By typing in the password and submitting a proposal, PIs are certifying that all contacts on the proposal have reviewed the proposal and understand the requirements of their respective roles.

o) Indirect Costs Proposals must follow JFSP indirect cost guidelines. (See Section C.4 above)

p) Contributed Costs See Section C.4 above.

q) Support Letters Support letters are encouraged, but not required. Support letters are useful if they show understanding of the proposed work and the letter author articulates how the work will benefit them. Support letters that appear to be ghost-written by the PI or are form letters are much less useful. If submitted, letters must be combined into one pdf document and attached on the attachments tab. Support letters sent by hard copy or email directly to JFSP will not be considered.

r) Past-Due Projects No proposals will be considered if the work includes a PI or Co-PI who is a PI or Co-PI on a JFSP project that is past due as of the closing date of this announcement. See the JFSP website for the complete JFSP past-due and extension request policy.

E. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION

The Government reserves the right to reject any and all proposals that do not meet the requirements of this funding opportunity announcement and are determined to be outside the scope of the authority under which this announcement is posted.

The evaluation process will consist of the following four screening levels:

1. First Level Screening—Basic Eligibility

b. Applications must satisfy basic eligibility screening requirements to be considered for further review.

Note: The relevancy check includes assessing whether the proposal (1) responds to the intent of the task statement and (2) falls within JFSP’s mission to support fundamental and applied research and science delivery. The relevancy check is a threshold review and if determined not to be relevant, no further evaluation of the proposal will occur.

2. Second Level Evaluation—Merit Review Evaluation via External Peer Review

Review Criteria Note: Review criteria are not arithmetically scored or weighted. Applicants, however, should note that the scientific merit criterion is given particular attention. Proposals that do not receive strong scientific merit reviews are unlikely to be funded.

Task statement responsiveness

· Does the proposal strongly or only weakly address the intent of the task statement?

· Are significant elements of the proposal extraneous to the intent of the task statement?

· Will the intended results be useful to a broad cross-section of the fire, fuels, and resource management or research community?

Technical merit

· Does the proposal address scientifically important questions and indicate how it will advance the state of the science?

· Does the proposal reflect the relevant literature that relates to the research issue and provides a basis for the proposed study design?

· Are objectives, questions and hypotheses clearly articulated? For hypotheses, are they stated in a testable manner?

· Is the study design adequate and associated with clear and defensible proposed analytical methods?

· Are the methods overall sufficiently rigorous to produce credible results?

· Is the proposal innovative or contain elements of risk that are justifiable in terms of potential benefits?

· Does the data management plan adequately capture the data management aspects of proposed work?

Deliverables and science application

· Are important and useful applications and deliverables described in the proposal?

· Is the scope and scale of planned applications and deliverables sufficient to have meaningful impact?

· Does a sufficient plan exist to exchange results with relevant audiences?

· When relevant, does the proposal provide evidence that investigators intend to collaborate with the JFSP Fire Exchange Network to develop and implement science delivery plans?

Budget

· Is the requested budget reasonable and realistic for the scope and scale of the proposed work?

· Does the budget narrative provide sufficient explanation and justification for the requested budget?

Feasibility/Personnel

· Does the project team have the skills and qualifications to execute the proposed work?

· Is the schedule reasonable?

· Have all likely barriers to project execution been identified and mitigated (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act or Endangered Species Act permit requirements?

· Have managers been involved when appropriate?

· When relevant, is project execution subject to the vagaries of weather or other…