It's a mix of your options 1 and 2.

EACH PI (co-PI, other designated senior person) who has had NSF funding within the past 5 years must pick THEIR ONE PROPOSAL that is most closely related to the current work being proposed and discuss their prior results. If they don't have a previous proposal that's closely related to the current proposal, then they can pick their one favorite/biggest/most impressive award and talk about that.

So if only one of your senior personnel has had NSF funding in the last 5 years, then s/he'd be the only one to have to complete prior results. If two of the five (pulling a number out of thin air) have funding, then each of them has to do it. If all five have prior support, then all five have to.

A couple of other caveats to keep in mind:

1. Per the new guidelines, results from prior support are now supposed to include discussion of results relevant both to the intellectual merit (which is what most PIs usually talk about), but also the broader impacts (which is a new requirement, and PIs may need to be reminded to talk about them).
2. For some programs (notably the Major Research Instrumentation competition, but I'm pretty sure there are others), they give preference to prior awards from that program. But even then they want one proposal per PI/senior person.

Michael Spires
Proposal Development Specialist
Office of Sponsored Projects
Smithsonian Institution
Mail: MRC 1205, P. O. Box 37012
Washington, DC 20013-7012
Voice: (202) 633-7436
Mobile: (202) 251-4317
Main office: (202) 633-7110
Fax: (202) 633-7119
http://prism.si.edu/osp/FundingSources/ProposalDevelopment/PropDev.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org] On Behalf Of chrissa papaioannou
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 16:13
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Subject: [RESADM-L] New NSF Guidelines on Results from Prior NSF Support

Hello everyone:

I am trying to clarify the language of the new 2013 NSF Guidelines related to the "Results from Prior NSF Support" that need to be included in the "Project Description".  According to the guidelines:

 “….If any PI or co-PI identified on the project has received NSF funding (including any current funding) in the past
 five years, information on the award(s) is required, irrespective of whether the support was directly related to the
 proposal or not. Funding includes not just salary support, but any funding awarded by NSF. Each PI and co-PI
 who has received more than one award (excluding amendments) must report on the award most closely related
 to the proposal. The following information must be provided:

 (a) the NSF award number, amount and period of support;
 (b) the title of the project;
 (c) a summary of the results of the completed work, including accomplishments, described in two separate
 sections, related to the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact activities supported by the award;
 (d) publications resulting from the NSF award;
 (e) evidence of research products and their availability, including, but not limited to: data, publications,
 samples, physical collections, software, and models, as described in any Data Management Plan; and
 (f) if the proposal is for renewed support, a description of the relation of the completed work to the proposed
 work.

 Reviewers will be asked to comment on the quality of the prior work described in this section of the proposal.
 Please note that the proposal may contain up to five pages to describe the results. Results may be summarized
 in fewer than five pages, which would give the balance of the 15 pages for the Project Description….  “

If the PIs and CoPIs have MORE THAN ONE NSF awards within the past 5 years, do they need to mention:

1.  ALL of them in the Prior and Current NSF results section of the “project Description”,  provide the basic information (i.e., title, duration, award number, total budget) for each of them AND elaborate more on the one most closely related to this project in question;

OR

2.  They have to mention ONLY the one most closely related and provide all the information outlined above, and omit all the other ones.

Any comments are welcome, as I am interpreting the guidelines as option (1), but some of my PIs insisting on option (2)

thanks

Chrissa Papaioannou, P.E., CRA
Director of Pre-Awards, Faculty Support Center Office of Sponsored Programs
Telephone: 201-216-8051
Fax:  201-216-8909
Email:  xxxxxx@stevens.edu

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including  subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available  via our web site at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the  "LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)

 A link directly to helpful tips:  http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help ======================================================================

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the
 "LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)

 A link directly to helpful tips:  http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help
======================================================================