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 - 1192 - Proposal Review Panel for Computing & Communication Foundations - Agency Authority

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Proposal Review Panel for Computing & Communication Foundations	Agency Name	National Science Foundation
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	1192
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, CCF
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix	Dr.
Current Charter Date	6/28/2024	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Dilma
Date Of Renewal Charter	6/28/2026	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Da Silva
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(703) 292-8910
Establishment Authority*	Agency Authority	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	(703) 292-9455
Specific Establishment Authority*	ADM IV-100	Designated Federal Officer Email*	ddasilva@nsf.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	8/30/1990
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?*	The committees serve as advisory panels to the program officers for the evaluation of proposals for selected NSF programs. These panels provide recommendations to the program officers as to which of the submitted proposals should and should not be funded. While the panels are advisory, their recommendations are normally the most significant factor in the decision-making process. While the workload is solely dependent on the number of proposals that are reviewed in this manner, in the typical panel setting, each individual will review about ten proposals. This requires approximately 30 days of effort before the panel meeting. The meeting typically requires one to two days of effort, with an additional day required for travel.
How is membership balanced?*	Panelists for the sessions are selected based on their knowledge of the fields represented by the proposals submitted. At the same time, every effort is made to ensure a diversity that approximates that found in the research community. Representatives are included from both major research centers and smaller colleges and universities. Representatives from non-academic organizations are included wherever appropriate. Members of underrepresented populations in computer and information science and engineering are included.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	Meetings are held as required to fulfill the mission of the Division. In this fiscal year, 77 panels were held to assist in the evaluation of regular research proposals, in the areas such as Algorithmic Foundations, Communications & Information Foundations, Foundations of Emerging Technologies, Software and Hardware Foundations, Exploiting Parallelism and Scalability, Cyber-Innovation for Sustainability Science and Engineering and Expeditions. The number is determined by the number of proposals to be reviewed and the need for as timely a review as possible within the limited resources available for support of the panel.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	Merit review represents the recognized strength of the National Science Foundation. While a mail merit review is possible mail reviewers generally are used for additional reviews to meet the rating requirements and/or for judgment normally made about a single proposal viewed in isolation. The panel provides a unique opportunity for the reviewers to calibrate their reviews based on comparative merits for all proposals submitted within a single complex, or multidisciplinary proposal.
Why close or partially close meetings?	To review proposals that included information or 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	Yes	Action Comment	NA
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements	No	Grants Review*	Yes
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	1,094
Outcome Comment	NA	Number Of Grants Recommended	299
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$215,913,652.00
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 panelist/advisory committee members provided information on the merit of the proposal, which includes an overall rating.
Number Of Recommendations*	1,125	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	The number of recommendations is for the fiscal year.	Access Agency Website	No
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	100.00%	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 judgements 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 Computer Technology Applications Computers Systems Engineering

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports