Reminder

Compliance protocols MUST be approved and linked in SeRA to a SPO project record prior to award acceptance. 

See ORA's Award Acceptance Resources for additional information.
Stanford
Office of Research Administration

National Science Foundation (NSF) Disclosure FAQs

The below provides Stanford’s guidance and sample NSF Current & Pending Support entries for frequently asked questions.  This content is being updated and expanded as we receive additional questions and guidance from NSF.  Please bookmark this page and visit frequently to view the most up-to-date content.  Please also refer to the NSF Published FAQs (updated April 20, 2022) on this topic.

Proposals and Projects

1. Should an investigator list on their NSF current and pending support only the pending proposals that they think are likely to be funded, or all proposals that have been submitted to date, but have not yet been rejected or awarded?

  • For pending proposals, list all proposals that have been submitted to date that have not been rejected or awarded.

2. Should an investigator list on their NSF current and pending support proposals and/or awards on which they were listed as PI, Co-PI or other key personnel that were NOT processed by Stanford or the VA and do NOT include a subcontract to Stanford?

  • Yes

3. For proposals and projects with multiple Stanford PIs and/or PIs and Co-PIs, should an investigator list on their NSF current and pending support only the portion of a proposal or project budget that they manage or the total Stanford proposal or project amount?

  • The total award amount requested or received must be provided

4. Should an investigator list on their NSF current and pending support University Research proposals and/or awards on which they were listed as PI, Co-PI or other key personnel?

  • Yes.  The Person-Month(s) or (Partial Person-Months) per year committed to the project should be a reasonable approximation of how much time the individual is planning to spend to complete the scope of work on the proposed project and/or award.  Per the NSF, person-month information included in current and pending support may differ from the person-months requested on the budget for a given project. The information contained on the budget is separate and distinct from the information entered on current and pending support regarding how much time the individual is or is planning, or has committed to spend on a project.

5. Should an investigator list on their NSF current and pending support Seed Grants?

  • Yes.  The Person-Month(s) or (Partial Person-Months) per year committed to the project should be a reasonable approximation of how much time the individual is planning to spend to complete the scope of work on the proposed project and/or award.

In-Kind Contributions

Personnel:

1. (UPDATED – October 19, 2021) Should an Investigator list Stanford students and postdocs in their lab who receive their own fellowships, training grant appointees, or external career development awards as in-kind support on their NSF current and pending support?

  • If the externally funded students and/or post docs will benefit the proposal being submitted, then they should be listed and discussed in the proposal’s Facilities and Other Resources document.  Otherwise…
  • If the Stanford student or post doc is directly awarded or supported by their own fellowship or career development awards from an external source (or is a training grant trainee) and they are performing research activities in support of the Investigator’s research endeavors, their support must be reported as an in-kind resource.  This includes student and post doc awards/fellowships paid through Stanford as well as those paid directly to awardees/fellows.
    • Exception: The NSF has advised students and post docs supported by NIH F31 or NIH F32 awards do NOT need to be reported as in kind support on their investigator's NSF current and pending support documents.
    • Note: Please confer with the relevant student services or department post doc administrator if unsure about a student's or post doc's funding source(s). For example, the following are disclosable if they also meet the criteria in the above bullet point:
      • Some MSTP students can be funded by/appointed to an externally funded NIH T32
      • Appointees to Institutional Training or Career Development grants such as T32’s and K12’s are disclosable.
      • NSF GFRP fellows since the main GFRP is an Institutional Award to Stanford.
  • The time commitment listed on the investigator's current and pending support should be a reasonable approximation of the time the investigator spends mentoring the specific student or post doc.  The dollar value of the in-kind contribution should include all aspects of the fellowship support e.g., salary/stipend, fringe benefits, tuition, and any institutional/research allowance.  For example:
Example of NSF C&P In-Kind Fellowship Supported Trainee Contribution entry

2. Should an investigator list as in-kind support on their NSF current and pending support an externally funded Visiting Student Researcher (“VSR”)* that contributes to the investigator's research endeavors?

  • If the externally funded Visiting Student Researcher will benefit the proposal being submitted, then they should be listed and discussed in the proposal’s Facilities and Other Resources document.  Otherwise…
  • Yes, an investigator should list their externally funded Visiting Student Researcher as in-kind support on the investigator’s current and pending support submission.  The time commitment should be a reasonable approximation of the time the investigator spends mentoring the specific VSR.  The dollar value of the in-kind contribution should include all aspects of the VSR’s support e.g., salary/stipend, fringe benefits, tuition, and any institutional allowance.

NOTE: While the SU host department of a VSR is not required to provide financial support for a VSR, a sponsoring faculty can elect to provide VSRs a stipend from non-sponsored funds and/or hourly employment on benefiting sponsored projects.  The above scenario is for when VSRs do NOT receive SU funding and thus their research effort is being provided in kind for the time commitment of the sponsoring faculty’s supervision/mentorship.

Example of NSF C&P In-Kind Externally Funded Visiting Student Researcher Contribution entry

3. Should an investigator list as in-kind support on their NSF current and pending support their Visiting Scholar who is a faculty from another inst. of higher education?

  • If the Visiting Scholar will benefit the proposal being submitted, then they should be listed and discussed in the proposal’s Facilities and Other Resources document.  Otherwise…
  • If the Visiting Scholar will only be consulting and will NOT BE conducting research while visiting Stanford that directly benefits the investigator’s research endeavors, and the time commitment to engage with the Visiting Scholar is not measurable, then no, the VS need not be listed as in-kind support on the investigator’s current and pending support submission.
  • If the Visiting Scholar will be conducting research while visiting Stanford that directly benefits the investigator’s research endeavors, and there is a measurable time commitment to oversee/engage with the Visiting Scholar, then yes, the Visiting Scholar should be listed as in-kind support on the investigator’s current and pending support submission.  The time commitment should be a reasonable approximation of the time the investigator spends supervising/overseeing the specific VS.  The dollar value of the in-kind contribution should be a fair market valuation of the VS research effort being provided.
Example of NSF C&P In-Kind Externally Funded Visiting Student Researcher Contribution entry

4. Should an investigator list as in-kind support on their NSF current and pending support their Visiting Scholar from an outside company that is in the investigator’s research group as part of an Industrial Affiliates Program annual membership/donation?

  • If the Visiting Scholar will benefit the proposal being submitted, then they should be listed and discussed in the proposal’s Facilities and Other Resources document.  Otherwise…
  • Yes, investigators should list their Industrial Affiliates Program Visiting Scholar that contributes to the investigator's research endeavors as in-kind support on the investigator’s current and pending support submission.  The time commitment should be a reasonable approximation of the time the investigator spends overseeing/engaging with the Visiting Scholar.  The dollar value of the in-kind contribution should be the amount of the associated Industrial Affiliates Program annual membership/donation.
Example of NSF C&P In-Kind IAP Visiting Scholar Contribution entry

Non-Personnel:

5. Should an investigator list as in-kind support on their NSF current and pending support Industrial Affiliates Program donation(s)/membership fee(s) for the year that is/are earmarked for the investigator’s specific area of research [but does NOT include an embedded Visiting Scholar – see above]?

  • If the IAP donation/annual membership will benefit the proposal being submitted, then it should be listed and discussed in the proposal’s Facilities and Other Resources document.  Otherwise…
  • Yes, investigators should list any Industrial Affiliates Program donation/membership fee for the year that is earmarked for the investigator’s specific area of research as in-kind support on the investigator’s current and pending support submission.  The time commitment should be a reasonable approximation of the time the investigator spends engaging with the relevant company.  It may be nominal.  The dollar value of the in-kind contribution should be the amount of the associated Industrial Affiliates Program annual membership/donation.
Example of NSF C&P In-Kind IAP Contribution entry

6. Should an investigator list as in-kind support on their NSF current and pending support access to without compensation office/laboratory space or equipment at a company or another institution of higher ed. while the investigator is on sabbatical?

  • If the access to the non-SU lab/research space and equipment will benefit the proposal being submitted, then it should be listed and discussed in the proposal’s Facilities and Other Resources document.  Otherwise…
  • If the investigator will not be conducting research while on sabbatical, then no, access without compensation to space and equipment at a company or another institution of higher ed. while the investigator is on sabbatical should not be submitted as part of the investigator’s NSF current and pending support submission.
  • If the investigator will be conducting research while on sabbatical, then yes, access without compensation to office/lab space and equipment at a company or another institution of higher ed. while the investigator is on sabbatical should be listed as in-kind support on the investigator’s NSF current and pending support submission.  The time commitment should be a reasonable approximation of the time the investigator spends conducting research that is not already accounted for under Current Projects which means it may be nominal.  The dollar value of the in-kind contribution can be nominal e.g., $0-1.
Example of NSF C&P In-Kind Space Contribution entry

7. Should an investigator list as in-kind support on their NSF current and pending support access to Company X’s office/laboratory space or equipment while the investigator consults without compensation at Company X?

Example of NSF C&P In-Kind Consulting Space Contribution entry

8. Should an investigator list as in-kind support on their NSF current and pending support externally provided at no cost, high-value materials that are not freely available (e.g., biologics, chemical, model systems, technology, data sets etc.) to which they have access?

  • If externally provided at no cost, high-value materials that are not freely available (e.g., biologics, chemical, model systems, technology, data sets etc.) will benefit the proposal being submitted, then they should be listed and discussed in the proposal’s Facilities and Other Resources document.  Otherwise…
  • If externally provided at no cost, high-value materials that are not freely available (e.g., biologics, chemical, model systems, technology, data sets etc.) are currently being used by/benefiting research endeavors of the investigator, then yes, they should be listed.  The time commitment should be a reasonable approximation of the time the investigator spends utilizing the externally provided at no cost, high-value materials that are not freely available (e.g., biologics, chemical, model systems, technology, data sets etc.).  The dollar value of the in-kind contribution should be a reasonable estimate given the specific material.
Example of NSF C&P In-Kind High Value Resource Contribution entry

9. New 10/26/2021 Should an investigator list as in-kind support on their NSF current and pending support thier Stanford gifts?

  • NSF defines a gift to be something that is given without the expectation of anything in return.  An item or service given with the expectation of an associated time commitment is not a gift, and is instead an in-kind contribution and must be reported as such.

  • While Stanford University policy on gifts aligns closely with this definition, there may be gifts that could come into question. As a result, we ask Investigators to use the guide document linked below to carefully consider and identify any gift that meets the criteria for disclosure for NSF Current & Pending Support. The guidance is also applicable for NIH Other Support.

Stanford NIH & NSF Gifts Disclosure Guidance (updated 10/25/2021)

Example if NSF C&P In-Kind Gift

 

Need further assistance? Have questions and/or feedback? Please submit questions and/or feedback and a member of the ORA-RMG Disclosures Team will respond to you shortly.