FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

NSF - 173 - Proposal Review Panel for Engineering Education and Centers - Agency Authority

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Proposal Review Panel for Engineering Education and Centers	Agency Name	National Science Foundation
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	173
Original Establishment Date	11/17/1988	Committee Status	Chartered
Actual Termination Date		Committee URL
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	Unlimited
Terminated This FY	No	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	Division Director
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix
Current Charter Date	6/28/2024	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Eric
Date Of Renewal Charter	6/28/2026	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Eric Miller
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(703) 292-8380
Establishment Authority*	Agency Authority	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	703 292-4228
Specific Establishment Authority*	ADM IV-100	Designated Federal Officer Email*	elmiller@nsf.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	1/2/1991
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte	Not Applicable
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Grant Review Committee

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	No
Legislation Status	Not Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	During FY 2024 Engineering Education and Centers Division (EEC) conducted proposal review panel meetings and site visits. The proposal review panels were comprised of a diverse group of engineers and educators from academia, industry and government. Panelists were selected with particular attention paid to increasing the participation of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities. The panels reviewed both solicited and unsolicited proposals submitted to the EEC division programs via the National Science Foundation (NSF) FastLane system. The panels reviewed proposals submitted to the Engineering Education, Human Resources Development, and Engineering Research Centers (ERC) programs. The panel discussions provided sound technical advice to EEC program staff. This advice was used to assist the EEC division staff in making final funding recommendation decisions on behalf of the NSF. The panelist’s reviews are only one of the factors used by program staff in determining which proposals were recommended for funding. The funding recommendation process is very difficult. In addition to the feedback received from the external peer review process, other factors used in the recommendation process include the total amount of program funds available, prior year funding commitments, a principal investigator’s prior award performance, opportunities to leverage other funding sources, the overall portfolio of the program, broader national needs, and general NSF policy.
How is membership balanced?*	The committee membership includes individuals with scientific, engineering, technology management backgrounds from academe, industry, and government. Consideration was also given to achieving geographic balance and to enhancing representation for women, minority, younger and disabled engineers and educators.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	Panels are convened periodically throughout the year in response to competitions for new ERCs, Engineering Education, Research Experiences for Undergraduates Initiative (REU), Research Experiences for Teachers Initiative (RET), Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education, or for annual progress reviews for ongoing ERCs, and to review special initiative proposals.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	While ad hoc mail reviewers can be chosen to give a thorough technical review of a proposal, mail reviewer judgments are normally made about a single proposal viewed in isolation. Panel review in combination with mail review, can, in addition, provide judgments about the comparative merits within a group of proposals or within a single complex, multidisciplinary center.
Why close or partially close meetings?	To review proposals that included information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals.
Recommendation Remarks	None

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	No	Action Reorganize Priorities*	No
Outcome Trust In Government	No	Action Reallocate Resources	No
Outcome Major Policy Changes	No	Action Issued New Regulations	No
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research	Yes	Action Proposed Legislation	No
Outcome Effective Grant Making	Yes	Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments	Yes
Outcome Improved Service Delivery	No	Action Other	No
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction	No	Action Comment	NA
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements	No	Grants Review*	Yes
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	560
Outcome Comment	NA	Number Of Grants Recommended	168
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$420,712,103.00
Cost Savings Comment	The use of panelists to review proposals for the Agency is an invaluable asset. The cost of obtaining the expertise, insight, and information received by the Division using alternative methods, such as hiring the expertise as full or part-time employees, would be extremely high.	Grants Review Comment	The panelists/advisory committee members provided information on the merit of the proposal, which includes an overall ratingThe number of proposals above includes pre-proposals submitted to NSF for review. The pre-proposals are not included in the number of “grants recommended” or “dollar value of grants” recommended for approval.
Number Of Recommendations*	558	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	This is an ongoing committee. Therefore, the number of recommendations produced by the committee is for the fiscal year.	Access Agency Website	No
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	0.00%	Access Committee Website	No
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment	The word “implement” is not applicable to grant review panels. All recommendations are “considered” by the agency.	Access GSA FACA Website	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented*	0.00%	Access Publications	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment	Not applicable. Please see answer directly above.	Access Other	No
Agency Feedback*	Yes	Access Comment	N/A
Agency Feedback Comment*	Although panelists may not receive direct feedback, each committee member may use the NSF FastLane, a public web-based program, which provides information on awards made by the agency to determine the outcome of proposals reviewed by the panel.	Narrative Description*	The NSF mission is set out in the NSF Act of 1950 authorizes and directs the Agency to initiate and support: basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process; and science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all fields of science and engineering. The involvement of knowledgeable peers from outside the Foundation in the review of proposals is the keystone of NSF’s proposal review system. Their judgments of the extent to which proposals address the merit review criteria are vital for informing NSF staff and influencing funding recommendations.

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*		1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*
2. Payments to Federal Members*		2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*
3. Payments to Federal Staff*		3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*
4. Payments to Consultants*		4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*		5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*		6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*		7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*		8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*
10. Other Costs		10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*
11. Total Costs	$0.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified	2/19/2025 11:03 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

Category Area Agriculture Plant Biology Agriculture Applied Science Applied Sciences Engineering Mathematics Statistics Arts Arts and Humanities Basic Science Basic Sciences Biology Chemistry Materials Research Microbiology Physics Business Industry Manufacturing Patents and Trademarks Small Business Civil Rights Disabled Equal Opportunity Minorities Native Americans Women Computer Technology Artificial Intelligence Technology Applications Computers Information Technology Internet Semiconductors Systems Engineering Cybersecurity Data Privacy Education Education Schools and Academic Institutions Training Emergency Earthquake, Flood, and Fire Hazards and Administration Energy Energy Fuel Fuel Transportation Mining and Minerals Natural Resources Pipelines Environment Earth Sciences Environmental Issues Waste Disposal Food and Drugs Biotechnology Food and Drugs Medical Devices Health Biodefense Health Care International International Organizations Labor Job Training Workforce and Occupations Legislation Regulatory Negotiation Medicine Health and Health Research National Defense National Security and Defense Research Basic Research Research and Development Science and Technology Innovation Science and Technology Social Sciences Social Sciences Trade Competitiveness Transportation Surface and Vehicular Transportation Highways Mass Transit Water Water Use

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports