Okay, Great.
Alright, Hello, everyone, we'll get started in 1 min.
Just gonna let folks trickle in
Okay, It looks like we have stabilized. good morning and good afternoon to everyone.
My name is Robert Beverly. with me I have my fellow program, Officer Kevin Thompson.
We're from the office of the advanced Cyber infrastructure within size at Nsf.
And we're here today to tell you about the cc or cybersecurity, innovation for cyber infrastructure solicitation.
This is solicitation. Nsf, 23, d, 5, 1 7.
So we really just have 4 goals for this webinar.
The first is to describe the Cc. program as well as its objectives.
Detail the current solicitation again. 23, 5, 1, 7, and any changes that are in there; third, to help folks al align their proposals to be responsive.
With these program goals and objectives, and then finally answer questions from the audience.
I'd like to encourage you to please put questions in the question and answer box. We will handle those either online synchronously at the end, or we will my colleague will answer them in the chat
box. So let's go ahead and talk about the cc program and its objectives.
Before I do that I definitely did want to orient everyone.
So you know who I am and who we are which organization we're with. so So first of all, Oac again is the office of advanced cyber infrastructure.
Our mission is to support and coordinate the development, acquisition and provisioning of state-of-the-art cyber infrastructure, resources to and services that are essential to the advancement and transformation of
science and engineering, and to clarify what we mean by infrastructure.
We take a very broad view of cyber infrastructure.
This encompasses computation data software networking as well as the workforce that's involved to facilitate the scientific discovery and innovation.
So within oac, we provide cyber infrastructure that enables research, and we do this across many of the science disciplines.
In fact, all of the science disciplines within Nsf: So here I have some images from various instruments and various disciplines, so some of the cyber infrastructure that we support supports initiatives within
astronomy, for instance, or physics or climateology, material science, biology, so on, and so forth.
And within these scientific domains there's many inf infrastructure challenges.
For instance, there's large instruments that produce very big data that requires big compute compute, and it needs to be done for highly in a highly collaborative way for scientists that are in different specializations that are widely
distributed both virtually and geographically. This infrastructure must be available.
We need to ensure workflow intenseity, and all of this needs to be easy to use while adhering to various regulatory or policy requirements that may be in place.
When we think about cybersecurity within this domain of scientific cyber infrastructure, we believe that there are many aspects that are similar to the enterprise.
Scenario for cybersecurity, but many aspects that make it unique.
For instance, if you think about the mission, the mission of science, cyber, infrastructure is primarily science-driven, whereas it may be monetarily driven in the enterprise sense, the physical environment can be very different and very
unique and very distinct. Similarly, the hardware that's involved may not just be commodity inst instruments and commodity hardware, but, in fact, specialized sensors.
Similarly, the operating systems may not be some of your traditional commodity operating systems, but specialized operating systems for for the instruments and the domain that they're in.
Similarly, the applications may not be your standard suite of enterprise applications, but it may be things that are in specialized languages. They may be legacy code. It may be unsupported code, so on and so
forth. and finally, the risk, for instance, may be very different so while we may think about, For instance, the risk of malware, which, of course, is prevalent risk in all domains.
There's also risks simply of in the physical space here i've shown a a telescope that's actually collapsed.
So when we think about the the why we think about cybersecurity in the research and education domain, providing benefits across the organization and across many organizations.
So let me tell you what I mean by this. If we think about the scientist, the scientist is interested simply in doing her research right their colleagues, for instance, however, may be interested in sharing data and sharing resources, but
also have strong interest in the reproducibility of the science, the integrity of the science.
Meanwhile, management is it interested in reputation and finance?
The research office is interested in protecting the intellectual property.
The Information Technology Division is interested in the availability of the infrastructure, and of course, the public needs to have trust in the science.
This is where Cc. Or, again, the cybersecurity, innovation for cyber infrastructure program comes into play.
The objective of the Cc. program is to develop deploy. and integrate solutions that benefit the broader site of the community by securing science data workflows and infrastructure.
And when i've given this talk in the past i've realized that sometimes folks are not familiar, even what we mean by a workflow.
So let me just explain. So you have some context. here here's just a example of a potential workflow that's involved in some of these big science experiments where there might be an instrument that's collecting data so you
have instruments. There's a data acquisition stage here. There may be some pre-processing stage here.
There's data movement involved there's data storage and data sharing involved.
And then there may be computation analytics on the data.
And then, of course, the dissemination of all of the results and the data.
So this is the kind of workflow that Cc.
Is trying to ensure that it's secure it's available. and it's reproducible when we say secure in this science cyber infrastructure context, it's important to note that it can
be much more than just confidentiality, which may be what jumps to mind immediately when you hear the word secure.
Instead, we we need to consider things like the importance of intense integrity, the importance of the provenance of the process and the data.
There may be issues of pi I and various kinds of protected research data, and then there may be issues of availability.
It's very important to have the infrastructure available to support the Science Mission.
So this is what Cc. is all about. So the Cc.
Program supports applied research. so secure science data, workflows and infrastructure.
It seeks to develop, deploy, and integrate solutions that benefit the broader scientific community.
But it also seeks to operationalize emerging cyber security techniques into the Science Ci domain.
And conversely, it seeks to develop new cybersecurity approaches.
That may be specific to the science, ci domain and the particular requirements and environments that are inherent in the cyber infrastructure domain.
So here's an an image of our vision for cybersecurity for cyber infrastructure.
This is taken from the Oa. The text here is taken from one of the oac blueprint vision documents, where what we are seeking to envision and create is an agile, integrated, robust, trustworthy, and
sustainable Ci ecosystem that drives new thinking and transformative discoveries in all areas of science and engineering research and education.
And of course, in here i've highlighted the words robust and trustworthy.
So within these threads of the facilities, that that Oac helps support, for instance, computing, networking and data, we see cybersecurity intertwined through all of these different activities.
And what we see all of these combining to provide are really 4 main things we're looking to provide collaborative science.
We're looking to provide accessible science we're looking to make the science cyber infrastructure robust, and we're looking to help facilitate reproducible science.
And we see all of these 4 things contributing eventually to the basic Science and Discovery mission of the Nsf.
Okay, So that's a high level on the cc program what it's seeking to do, and its objectives.
Next i'm going to detail the actual solicitation again 23, 5, 1, 7, and any changes that are in the solicitation.
So the solicitation has 3 program areas the first program area is Ucss or the usable and collaborative security for science.
In this program area we're looking for applied research that can help facilitate scientific collaboration can help adopt security into scientific workflows and do all of this while overcoming security and usability
obstacles that may be present to scientists and cyber infrastructure, performing data and resource.
Sharing the second program area is the reference scientific security data sets or R.
Ssd: This program area see seeks to capture scientific, specific workflow and workload behaviors and gather and curate canonical science workload data sets that can help facilitate techniques that to
secure science Ci. The third area is tcr or the transition to cyber infrastructure resilience in this program area.
We're looking for work that can help. improve the robustness and resilience of scientific cyber infrastructure through activities such as test in a value.
Pardoning validation and transition of novel cybersecurity, research into cyber infrastructure
Across these these 3 program areas are some key themes the first is applied security research.
So within the domain of Nsf programs, Cc.
Is certainly more on the applied side that we still are interested in a fundamental research.
But we're also highly emphasizing the applied nature of cybersecurity, as it applies to cyber infrastructure.
And so one of the key themes is applied security research that can benefit science.
The domain scientists themselves and the scientific cyber infrastructure.
A. A second and key theme is to recognize and leverage where a applicable, any inherent differences that are in the science. ci ecosystem.
Again inclusive of data software workflows and workloads.
Third is, we like to emphasize the fact that cyber infrastructure, cybersecurity needs to be usable and adoptable.
So within Cc. we like to consider the usability aspects, the adoption, aspects and ways that the work will empower domain.
Scientists. The fourth program area theme is transition we're looking to transition cybersecurity research into scientific cyber infrastructure.
And finally, we're looking to discover and mitigate weaknesses and vulnerabilities that exist in science, cyber infrastructure. again inclusive of data software workflows and workflows.
So the solicitation, 23, 5, 1, 7, continued, continues a commitment to 3 primary areas.
So the program areas that I mentioned Ucss. R. Ssd.
And Tcr. Those are unchanged from 2,022.
In the last solicitation for the Ucss and Rss. D. areas.
These are small awards. So this means up to $600,000 for a period of 3 years.
The Tcr. or transition to cyber security resilience.
Our medium awards that can be up to 1 point, 2 million dollars over 3 years one important update.
I want to make sure the community is aware of is the fact that this solicitation actually includes 2 due dates which reaffirms our Nsf and Oacs commitment to cybersecurity within cyber infrastructure
and this program. So the first due date is coming up next month, February, seventeenth of 2023.
But we also have a due date in the next fiscal year.
In February the first 2,024 there's no difference in the program between these 2 due dates.
It it's just when it's most appropriate for you to submit.
We anticipate in each year, supporting, and total 12 to 20 awards, subject, of course, to available funding.
So what do successful Cc program proposals distribute some of the most successful Cc proposals to date.
Describe, some of the non cybersecurity science drivers.
They speak to the particular science applications and the particular users that will use the cybersecurity, cyber, infrastructure.
Pardon me and benefit from the cyber security activities.
They describe the scientific infrastructure itself and the environment that will benefit.
They described unique properties that may be present in the scientific domain or within the cyber infrastructure that influences the desired security.
Functionality, the security design, or the security mechanisms. Successful proposals describe the particular threat model that exists within the science domain and the application domain.
And then last they describe plans for gathering quantitative metrics to help assess the security benefits and the impact of the work.
I've left this url up here if you look at this Url.
It will actually give you a listing of all of the prior awards that have been made in this program, and can give you an idea of some of the proposals that are current.
Some of the research that's currently active within cc what what is Cc: not
So It's important to note a Few Things that that are not responsive to the Cc.
Solicitation the first is it's not an appropriate mechanism for non security infrastructure efforts.
So it's not intended for instance, to support pure infrastructure operation.
It is a research program, and it is part of nsf's, research, portfolio it is not for cyber security research that has no domain.
Science, driver or no target science, cyber, infrastructure.
So again emphasizing those points of a science driver and a target science, cyber, infrastructure.
Finally, Cc. is not intended to support some of the basic cybersecurity or privacy.
Research that's that goes on at nsf there are programs at Nsf that may better serve those kinds of initiatives.
In particular, the satsy or secure and trustworthy cyberspace program is more focused on basic and fundamental cybersecurity and privacy.
Research, which may be more appropriate so let's move on to proposal preparation.
It's important for everyone to be aware of the pap G.
Or the proposal award Policies and Procedure guide, which details all of the particular proposal, preparation, requirements that are involved.
For this solicitation, proposal titles for your submissions need to include the Cc.
Acronym, followed by a colon followed by the program area.
Either Ucss or Ssd. or Tcr. followed by a Colon, and then the title.
So, for instance, you might submit a proposal. Cc.
Colon. Rss. D. Colon. My amazing proposal, and these proposals must be submitted by research.
Gov: Not fastly. I want to emphasize to the community the departure of Development Fast Lane system.
This is real. it's been in process for some time, but it will not be possible to submit your proposal through Fast Lane.
It is actually being decommissioned and I want to Make everyone open aware of this ahead of time in case there are any issues in your submission process, or with your particular research office submitting. your proposals.
So please don't submit. your proposal at the last minute, but allow appropriate time in case your research office is not yet familiar with submitting through research.
Gov. eligibility. So eligibility for the Cc.
Program proposed may only be submitted by universities and colleges, or the institutes of higher learning, and by nonprofit non-academic organizations.
The limits on the number of proposals per api coppi, or senior personnel is 2.
An individual may participate as Pi or Copi, or other senior personnel, on no more than 2 Cc.
Proposals. Okay. great. so that's the solicitation and next, we'd like to tell you and provide some guidance on proposal alignment, and how to make your proposals responsive to the program as well
as detail some of the ways that the proposals will be evaluated.
So as many of you are familiar. Nsf has its standard merit, review, criteria.
So the reviewers and the review panel will address the 2 main review criteria, which are intellectual merit and broader impacts in addition.
And these are all detailed within the solicitation text itself.
In addition, the reviewers and the panel will be asked to provide feedback, and to evaluate the casing specific review criteria, which i'll detail next. all of this will be considered not only in the reviews but also
in the panel discussions as well as the panel summaries.
So what are the Cc specific criteria? the
These can be put into a couple of different categories.
The first is project motivation and impact. So is the proposal Science driven. we've said this several times is the proposal innovative in terms of cyber infrastructure and cyber infrastructure
plans? Does the work include project plans and system and process architectures?
Does it build on existing recognized capabilities, and does it have close collaborations among the stakeholders that are identified?
So here, for instance, is there demonstrable evidence between, for instance, the cybersecurity researcher and the cyber infrastructure folks that provide the cyber infrastructure.
And then measurable outcomes are there sustained and sustainable impacts that have been identified.
So all of this text is taken verbatim for the slip from the solicitation i'll just run through this quickly.
Just so it's in your in your head the Science driven aspect talks about to what extent is the proposed project.
Science driven. How will the project Outcomes fill? Well recognize science and engineering needs of the research community?
What will be the broader impacts of the project such as its benefits to science and engineering communities beyond its initial targets, underrepresented communities and education and workforce development in terms of innovation we're interested in to what
extent is the proposed project innovative? What innovative and transformational capabilities will the project bring to its target communities?
And how will the project integrate innovation and discovery into the project activities in terms of cyber infrastructure plans?
We're interested in how well detailed are the project plans and the logical and physical architectures in terms of building on existing recognized capabilities.
We'd like to see to what extent does the proposed project build on existing recognized capabilities.
How will the project project? Activities build on and leverage existing Nsf: by national and open source?
Cyber, infrastructure, and cybersecurity investments as appropriate, and then close collaboration amongst stakeholders.
To what extent does the proposed project involve close collaboration among the stakeholders?
How will the project activities engage? cyber infrastructure experts, specialists, and scientists working in concert with the relevant domain?
Scientists who are users of the cyber infrastructure and then sustained and sustainable impacts.
How will the project's outcomes and its activities have long term impact, and how will these be sustained beyond the life of the award as appropriate? Are the sustainability approaches following well-established
models. So please consider all of these Cc specific criteria Again, just to emphasize the deadline is February seventeenth.
For this cycle of Cc. and then in next year, in 2024 there'll be a deadline February first in terms of scheduling, and how we review these proposals nsf targets
a 6 month dwell time. So this means, from the time that the proposal is submitted.
Until you get your reviews and decisions. is our target. of course we don't always adhere to that. but that's what we endeavor to do.
Okay, So last i'd like to take the time to answer any questions from the audience.
So I believe. my colleague Kevin has been answering many of the questions.
I will emphasize. please let us know if at any time you would like to just you have questions concerns or have some particular aspect of your project that you would like to discuss one-on-one with a program officer
we are always happy to speak with the community and talk to you about proposals.
Please send us an email either of us, myself or or Heaven.
Our email addresses are are here. And so with that.
I am happy to take any questions from the community.
Please put your questions in the Q. and a box. Okay.
So the first question is, will these slides be made available?
The answer is, Yes, they will. This takes a bit of time on on the Nsf side.
We have a a process for public release of of these kinds of presentations.
So. Yes, they will be available on the Nsf. Cc.
Web page, but it may take a couple of weeks if you don't see the slides in a couple of weeks.
Please let us know
Okay, the next question is, could you please elaborate
Examples of proposals that are good for both, or only Satsy, or or only only Cc: sure,
So so happy to to talk about that. I you know.
Of course there is is naturally some overlap between these these programs.
They're both involved with security in privacy let me tell you what I have.
I can. I can give some examples, but I also have a backup slide that perhaps I will show here.
So this is a question that that we get quite a lot.
Of course it's up to you as the proposal to decide what's more appropriate Cc.
Or or sat see but at a very high level.
When we think about these 2, typically when we talk about cc it's more on the towards the applied realm.
When we talk about the research as opposed to in satsy, it's more basic science of cyber security and cyber privacy.
So here, Cc is definitely on that spectrum and that continuum between between applied and basic research, Cc. is definitely more on the applied side.
When you look at the target of the actual activities. it's important to think about Cc in the context of providing security and privacy for scientists and researchers, right?
So it's really to benefit the the cyber infrastructure right?
And so that could mean scientists in any of the fields that Nsf supports.
Again a astronomy, or chemistry, or physics?
Or what have you? and many times their cyber infrastructure that supports all of these domains?
So, of course, Oac provides leadership, class computing.
Hpc: We provide middleware we provide networks. we provide data and storage solutions.
So all of these kinds of things are definitely in the wheelhouse of Cc.
In contrast, sat see, is definitely more targeted to general society.
Right and so, there may be security and privacy work that's targeted to a societal good as well as opposed to, for instance, security and privacy work that's targeted more narrowly to
cyber infrastructure as we define it.
And again, that applies to to the argument, to the environments. Excuse me, cc.
Is more targeted to science cyber infrastructure, whereas Satzi is more targeted to general.
The general environments. So I hope that helps i'm. i'm happy to take take that question offline or discuss further and let me go to the next question.
Will the recording be made available? Yes, In addition to the video, the closed captioned transcript will be made available. Okay?
The next question from the anonymous attendee, is is it advisable to include industry, support for applied cybersecurity? research?
We certainly so so support, of course, is is a loaded word.
So would be would be interested to know what you are thinking. there.
But we are certainly interested in work that involves partnering and collaborating with industry as a appropriate
And we have found, for instance, that many of the more transition oriented activities do indeed include some industry component.
However, I would not say it's advisable it may be very context dependent.
So it depends on what you're you're trying to do it's certainly not a requirement so let me say it that way.
If you have some specific questions about including industry and industry support in your idea, please, please reach out to us offline. and we're happy to talk about that particular circumstance in in detail.
Okay, the next question: Can the security and privacy for include clinic, clinicians and and doctors?
The the answer to that is is, is, yes, this is a a bit of a fuzzy area.
Both nsf and our our Federal you know, partner Nih are are involved, of course, in these kinds of activities.
It, you know, really comes down to you know what the activity is.
There is a bit of a fuzzy line between Nsf and what any what's in the wheelhouse of Nih.
So I think we'd like to know more about it but certainly, nsf is involved in in this kind of work.
And some of the cyber infrastructure, of course, supports supports, medicine and this kind of activity.
So I think we would need more more details about that. Okay?
Thank you for all the questions. Please keep them coming we really appreciate it.
So let's see next question do we need collaborators stakeholders in a specific domain for Cc: So again, there it's not required.
But it can certainly help right. So this provides some evidence.
If your project's success in some way you know depends on this collaboration, then then yes, it's it's good to have those folks included whether that means as being part of the proposal or whether that
means a letter of of of collaboration right is is of course, appropriate it.
Doesn't need to be a funded activity necessarily but including stakeholders in a specific domain helps provide evidence to the panel and the reviewers and Nsf. that that the actual stakeholders are engaged and will not only
benefit, but provide some of their input into the process, and in the the cybersecurity of the subgroup cyber infrastructure.
Excuse me. Okay, next question. the how big of a competition is expected?
What fraction of proposals were funded, small medium, rough orders of magnitude.
So on. So, unfortunately we're not able to give any specific numbers on on that
I would again encourage you to look at what's been funded in the past.
I believe in the last rough order of magnitude in in in the last solicitation from 20 22 we made around a dozen awards. is a rough order of magnitude.
So hopefully, that helps. Okay, next question: Could you speak a bit more on the focus for the collaboration with Ci stakeholders for successful proposal?
Is there specific focus on working directly with end users or or with Ci staff that supports end users.
So I think this is very similar to the to the last question.
Again. it may depend on exactly the activity that's being proposed.
But it's certainly the case that we'd like to see some of this evidence of collaboration, and that the domain scientists, and that the domain cyber infrastructure, is engaged again that could be as a as
an unfunded collaborator. that can be a A letter of collaboration which is, is certainly welcome.
But this helps, as I stated previously, provide some evidence of the engagement with the folks.
That will be the consumers of the work. as well as providing evidence that there will be some feedback loop there to help.
Sort of complete, that virtualist virtuous cycle where results of the the research may be improved by getting feedback from the collaborators.
So not required. But it is great to see that kind of evidence of cloud operations.
Okay, can you please give an example or elaborate on an impact that can be sustainable beyond the duration of the project? Ai: Yeah.
Eg. Does that mean to be economically sustainable?
Right, so sustainability is a a hard nut to to crack
And you know what we're we certainly don't expect you know, every project to be sustained beyond the the life of the the project, that being said, we want folks to think about the sustainability right we want folks to sort of take
that longer that longer view right? The thing that we we absolutely like to try to mitigate is some very nice piece of work being done.
And then the funding runs out, and then that particular piece of of work, you know, no longer provides benefit to the the community.
Right. So in your proposals. Really, I I know this can be hard to do a priori.
But as much as possible articulate what you envision beyond the the life of of the project.
After it's after it finishes and that could be you know something along the lines as an example, as you know we will do this activity.
We'll get it. we'll work with this particular identified collaborator, and this particular collaborator plans to you know.
Continue using it. This artifact or whatever piece of work in their cyber infrastructure beyond the life of the the award.
But that's certainly a hard sustainability is hard, but it's something that we want the community to think about.
In these proposals. Okay, next question: does Cc support research on enhancing cyber infrastructure dedicated for cybersecurity purposes?
So this this is a a great question. So we certainly are are open to those kinds of activities. So this would be cyber infrastructure for cybersecurity, for cyber infrastructure for cyber security we are
certainly open to those. But please talk to us about those if they're they're too narrowly focused.
Those kinds of activities may be more appropriate for for sat, See?
Okay, okay. next question is, is the topic of securing continuous fuzzing platforms considered within scope.
So you know Again, one of the things that nsf we like to say is that we?
We encourage your best ideas, Right? We want to know what you think is is in scope.
What you think will have the most impact on the the cyber infrastructure. And so you know, to to answer this.
You know certainly. If you believe that this activity will have an impact on on cyber infrastructure and science.
I think it it would be considered within scope it's of course.
You know it it's up to you to to our articulate that that vision.
Okay, are there any preservations? maybe this is reservations on collaborations with with national labs?
Right. Okay. So please let me just say this this does come up.
I believe you're talking about things like ffr Dc's.
For for instance. it is gender in general it is difficult for us to fund the national labs.
This in effect, is government money going back to the Government?
When, indeed, our objective is to get money out of the government.
It is possible, in some exceptional circumstances now if you're simply talking about collaborating with the national lab.
That is, is absolutely welcome. and encouraged. and we have several examples of Cc activities that are ongoing right Now, that involve national labs.
It's the whether that collaboration involves funding that it gets a bit fuzzier.
So please, if you have particular questions about that let's discuss that one on one on one reach out to us.
Okay, could you please explain more about the level of requirements in applications?
Field research and fundamental research for for cybersecurity.
So I i'm not in I think I might need a little bit more more detail.
About this So you know field research I is absolutely something that that occurs in many of the scientific disciplines that that Nsf supports and and is engaged in.
I think if i'm reading the question correctly you know field research would be considered part of of one of these scientific workflows.
And if what you are envisioning involves helping to secure that workflow, that includes some field research, I think that that is absolutely in scope in terms of the the level of requirements.
You know it would definitely depend on on the particular idea.
I would absolutely encourage you to, you know. Again read through the the solicitation.
Look at the solicitation specific criteria in terms of the the requirements of of what we're what we're looking for, and then put forth your best idea. if that doesn't answer your question and i'm sorry
if I if I didn't, please send us an email Okay, next question: is it required to have the proposed cyber infrastructure?
Serve a diverse range of research fields so no that's not a requirement.
Indeed there's cyber infrastructure that's you know what we might call the spoke to a particular research field.
Certainly there's cyber. infrastructures that are used within very widely within one particular science field and one particular domain, but not used outside of that domain.
It is not a requirement that it serves this diverse range of fields.
It really depends on what the cyber infrastructure you're targeting actually is.
Again. If you have particular questions about that aspect or your idea, please reach out to us.
Okay, all right. So I believe I have reached the end of the Q.
A I will give a few more moments for anyone to join in with a last minute question
Okay, here we go. what is the expectation of collaborations with it?
Support organizations that's a that's a great question
So so here we have found that so expectation there's no particular expectation.
It's not a able, if the cyber infrastructure stakeholders include, the it support organization at a university, or wherever it is.
Then it again would be advisable to have them as a collaborator and engaged in the project again.
That doesn't mean that they're funded necessarily but they have expressed cognizance and support of the activity.
For instance, through a letter of collaboration. I would just comment on this really quickly, that some of the most successful cyber infrastructure, you know, projects and and Cc.
Projects have involved some of the It support organization. And indeed it often helps.
These activities often are beneficial to the it support organization.
So it it depends on your particular idea long winded way of saying it's not it's not a requirement.
But if they are integral to the to the cyber infrastructure, then it's great to see some sort of collaboration with the It support. organization.
Thank you for the question. Okay, So i've been done a fairly efficient job of covering the solicitation.
Again. I Oh, here's one more can a university serve as the prime on a proposal along with an industry organization as a sub, ie.
A funded collaborator under this program. So yes, they can.
This is permissible. the only comment I would have here is, if this is the planned activity, please do a good job on motivating and explaining the relationship with the industry organization and the motivation for including them as
a sub Awardy So yes, they. In fact, this would be the only way that we would be able to do.
This is to make the award to the university and have the University make a a suburb, because, we do not, for this program make awards to to industry.
So it would have to be done as a sub award.
If there is a any additional question about that, please please let me know.
I hope I answer that. Yeah. Okay, can there be 2 pi's each from from different institutions.
So so excuse me. yes, there can be 2 pris from different institutions.
However. i'm glad you asked this question we in this program.
Do not allow for the collaborative proposals. so to have the 2 Pi's from different institutions.
It would need the need that it would need to be done as a sub award.
So the award would need to be made to the one institution, and then a sub award.
Can we sub award to to national labs?
So let me. let me take that one off offline.
If it's the individual who who wrote that?
Could could send me an email. Let me let me take that offline to to give you a an accurate answer
Oh, sorry! I see one more. Could you still request a meeting with the program directors to discuss the scope of the proposals?
So so yes, we again, we we often are hesitant to give any.
Yes, no answers in terms of scope. Right?
We want your your best ideas and we rely on the expertise of the panel and the reviewers to decide whether something is appropriate and responsive to the solicitation.
So we're we're happy to give some some high level guidance.
But just so. you know we're happy to do meetings and and talk to the community.
But we generally don't give yes, no is this in scope or not.
It it's again incumbent upon the pis to to describe why it's in scope, and how it's responsive to the criteria of the solicitation, so I hope that helps we're always happy to
to speak with the community
They? This is great. Thank you for all the participation. very much.
Appreciate it. Okay, within one institution, any limits on the number of Pis and Copis.
On one proposal Submission I would have to I would have to look at the the Pap G for that.
The proposals the the policy guide on that one.
Let me. please get If you could send us an email the the individual that asked that question.
I I would have to to to look I believe I believe there's a limit of 4.
But I need to to confirm that
All right. So again, thank you so much for being a part of this community.
Thank you so much for your interest in the Cc. program.
Thank you for the work that you all do. And sorry, last question are the awards for the proposals based on program areas?
So I if you're if you are you're asking about the the monetary.
Amounts. we have a rough idea of the allocation of funds to various program areas. but this is not.
This is not a strict think we are really looking for the best proposals, and if all of the best proposals are in one program area, then certainly there will be more funding apportioned within our
admittedly limited budget to those proposals and that program area.
So we have no proof, Precon, no strongly preconceived notion on how much funding goes to each program area, with the exception of the fact that we do recognize that the Tcr awards are are larger
okay awards. those are Those are medium awards.
And so within our our limited within our limited budget they're they're what we'll likely be fewer of those than in the other 2 program areas all of that being said if folks submit a amazing ideas.
We we can. we can try to make things happen.
So thank you for the question
This is this is great. These are really good questions. I will, I will do the awkward silence for one more minute to see if any last minute questions come in
Okay, So thank you so much for participating again. Thank you for the work you do.
Thank you for the interest in Cc. please. let us know if we can clarify anything further.